ArticleCancer medicine2025
Digital Patient-Reported Cancer Symptom Management: Comparison of Black and White Participants.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A multi-dimensional assessment of fatigue among patients undergoing breast radiotherapy.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Digital Patient-Reported Cancer Symptom Management: Comparison of Black and White Participants.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDigital symptom monitoring effectively reduces symptom burden in cancer patients receiving treatment. However, concerns persist about whether digital interventions are equitable across racial groups, and limited studies have reported on differences between racial groups. This secondary analysis compared engagement, satisfaction, and cancer symptom reduction benefits in Black and White participants utilizing an electronic capture of patient-reported outcome (ePRO) reporting system, symptom care at home (SCH), throughout chemotherapy.
methodsParticipants undergoing cancer treatment at a comprehensive cancer center reported daily on the 11 common oncology symptoms via electronic patient reporting (ePRO) on a scale of 0-10. The mean symptom burden over time was compared between Black and White patients. End-of-study patient satisfaction ratings were completed and compared between Black and White patients receiving chemotherapy at a comprehensive cancer center in Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
resultsOf the 357 self-identified participants, 239 (66.95%) were Black, and 118 (33.05%) were White. Black participants were more likely to be female, have breast cancer, not currently married, and have less than a 4-year college degree compared to Whites. Black participants had lower adherence to daily symptom reporting (65.25%; SD = 26.90 vs. 72.75%; SD 22.45; p = 0.01), but both groups reported the majority of days. The intervention produced a significant improvement in symptom burden (p < 0.001), with a mean improvement of 0.14 symptom burden points per week with equal benefit between Blacks and Whites (p = 0.27). Overall satisfaction was high for both groups, with a trend toward higher Black satisfaction (p = 0.06).
conclusionCarefully designed digital health technologies can be acceptable and beneficial in reducing symptom burden for both Blacks and Whites. All patients, but particularly Black patients, may benefit from tailored encouragement strategies to report their symptoms. This paper provides evidence that ePRO reporting systems do not perpetuate inequity but, in fact, benefit cancer patients across racial groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.