ArticleDigital health
Prioritizing implementation strategies of electronic patient-reported outcome in cancer management in primary health care: A best-worst scaling study among stakeholders.
Article in Digital health. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) are valuable for cancer symptom monitoring, but implementation in resource-limited primary health care remains challenging. Identifying stakeholder preferences regarding implementation strategies is crucial for facilitating the adoption and effectiveness of ePRO-based cancer symptom management. Objective: This study aimed to prioritize optimal implementation strategies for ePRO-based cancer symptom management in Chinese primary health care, considering stakeholder preferences. Methods: A best-worst scaling was conducted among stakeholders. Thirteen implementation strategies, derived through qualitative research and implementation science frameworks, were assessed. Preferences were analyzed using count analysis, conditional logit model (CLM), mixed logit model (MLM), and latent class analysis (LCA). Results: A total of 169 respondents were included in the final analysis. Count analysis identified the top three preferred strategies as developing tiered cancer management through ePRO (standardized BW = 0.32), providing evidence-based practice (EBP) incentives (standardized BW = 0.20), and engaging stakeholders (standardized BW = 0.14). Least preferred were disseminating paper/web-based ePRO-related materials (standardized BW = -0.28) and developing ePRO toolkits (standardized BW = -0.25). CLM and MLM results aligned with count analysis, with tiered cancer management through ePRO having the highest odds ratios (OR = 3.20 for CLM, 4.37 for MLM), followed by EBP incentives (OR = 2.55 for CLM, 3.12 for MLM) and stakeholder engagement (OR = 2.25 for CLM, 3.13 for MLM). LCA identified five stakeholder subgroups with distinct preference patterns based on professional roles and settings, including: favorability towards tiered cancer management through ePRO (class 1), preferences for disseminating paper/web-based ePRO-related materials (class 2), financial incentives among younger practitioners and healthcare administrators (classes 3 and 4), and prioritization of stakeholder engagement (class 5). However, tiered cancer management through ePRO were relatively highly preferred across all groups. Conclusions: Tailoring ePRO implementation to stakeholder preferences is crucial. Tiered cancer management was universally preferred, while other strategies varied by professional role. Future research should focus on longitudinal evaluations and economic assessments.
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.