ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2026
Educational Targets for Patient-Reported Outcomes and Caregiver-Reported Outcomes in Psycho-oncology Research.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and caregiver-reported outcomes (CROs) are tools for evaluating behavioral medicine interventions and for bringing the patient voice into observational research. This study aimed to identify barriers to using PROs/CROs in behavioral cancer research and to equitably address those barriers. Forty-nine members of a cancer special interest group from a research society completed surveys in early 2023 about needs related to the use of PROs and CROs. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize results. Most participants used PROs (n = 34, 69%) but few frequently used CROs (n = 12, 24%). More than 80% of the sample were familiar with common PRO/CRO properties such as reliability and validity. Participants reported considering a wide variety of population characteristics when using PROs and CROs, including language (n = 31, 70%) and education level (n = 31, 70%). The most common barriers to using PROs/CROs in research were time, funding, and technology with many reflecting potential reasons for inequitable representation of certain groups in research. Webinars were the most preferred educational format (n = 38, 78%) for resources related to PROs/CROs. Many participants encountered barriers to using PROs in research. Creation and dissemination of educational resources to promote equitable use of PROs/CROs across underrepresented groups and overcome common barriers to use of these measurement tools are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40824476What 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.