Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41646091›Full record

ReviewESMO real world data and digital oncology2024

Implementing digital patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: barriers and facilitators.

S G Aanes, S Wiig, C Nieder, E C Haukland

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ESMO real world data and digital oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07597590 (Feasibility of a Structured Digital Patient-Reported Assessment Pathway in Older Adults With Acute Leukemia), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07597590 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Feasibility of a Structured Digital Patient-Reported Assessment Pathway in Older Adults With Acute Leukemia: A Prospective Single-Center Pilot Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorFundación para la Investigación Biosanitaria del Principado de AsturiasRan2026 to 2028Enrolled20ConditionsLeukemia Acute Myeloid, Leukemia Acute Lymphoid Leukemia (ALL)ArmsDigital Patient-Reported Assessment Pathway
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Implementation of an ePRO-based system supporting treatment readiness assessments in lung cancer care: a mixed-methods study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

S G AanesDepartment of Oncology and Palliative Medicine, Nordland Hospital Trust, Bodø, Norway.
S WiigFaculty of Health Sciences, SHARE - Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
C NiederDepartment of Oncology and Palliative Medicine, Nordland Hospital Trust, Bodø, Norway.
E C HauklandDepartment of Oncology and Palliative Medicine, Nordland Hospital Trust, Bodø, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In cancer care research, there exists a gap between patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and health care personnel-reported outcomes. PROs have shown significant benefits in terms of symptoms, quality of life, reduced hospital admissions and increased overall survival. However, throughout the past decade, PROS have been used mainly in clinical trials and slowly implemented in routine cancer care. We wanted to review specific published experiences identified as barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of digital PROs in routine cancer care. Results: A literature search was conducted in PubMed and Ovid Medline Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (EBMRs) from 1 January 2017 to 29 August 2023. A total of 313 records were screened, of which 15 records were included. Facilitators identified were a user-friendly electronic PRO (ePRO) solution routinely used by care providers in a revised workflow that engaged key stakeholders and provided sufficient support and infrastructure. Common barriers were lack of information about benefits, time constraints, literacy or lack of access to text or information technology (IT) together with a negative impact on workflow, inadequate IT infrastructure, not engaging staff and costs. Conclusions: Successful implementation of ePRO systems needs to address identified barriers and leverage facilitators. Using implementation frameworks and guidelines with quality improvement methods can enhance successful implementation as they address both local barriers and facilitators in a system thinking perspective. There is still an unmet need for real-world evidence on how sustainable PROs can be implemented most efficiently over time, thus highlighting the need for a bridge between medical and implementation science.

Indexed as

ePROePROMimplementationpatient-reported outcome measuresremote symptom monitoringroutine cancer care

Identifiers

PMID41646091
PMCPMC12836584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.