ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023
Usability of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Older Patients With Cancer: Secondary Analysis of Data from an Observational Single Center Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global burden of breast cancer and application of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials: a systematic analysis based on the global burden of disease study 2021 and WHO international clinical trial register database.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Electronic patient-reported outcome systems and capabilities in cancer care: a systematic review.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Pooled it
- Advancing patient-centered cancer care: a systematic review of electronic patient-reported outcome measures.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024Pooled it
- Test the reliability and comparability of the paper version and electronic version of the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index in Chinese language: a randomized, cross-sectional study.Clinical rheumatology · 2025Trial
- Implementation and impact of an electronic patient reported outcomes system in a phase II multi-site adaptive platform clinical trial for early-stage breast cancer.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Trial
- Remote usage of digital patient-reported outcome measures for shoulder and elbow pathologies: a systematic review.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Review
- Real-World Impact of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes on Early Intervention Among Older Patients With Lung Cancer: Prospective Cohort Study.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- Article
- Feasibility of Knee PROMs in Older Chinese Population: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study of WOMAC, KOOS, and OKS.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Feasibility of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes for a Population Receiving Specific Health Checkups: A Pilot Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Feasibility of weekly patient-reported symptom monitoring using patients' own smartphones in outpatient cancer chemotherapy: the SMART-PRO study.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Evaluating an electronic patient-reported outcome monitoring system in patients with prostate cancer in routine clinical care: a prospective observational study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Observational
- Feasibility of implementing a codesigned patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) collection system for older adults in acute and sub-acute hospital settings.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Convalescence after radical orchiectomy: Detailing surgical recovery with a novel electronic patient reported outcome (ePRO) platform.Urologic oncology · 2025Article
- Enhancing vaccine clinical trials participation among elderly: challenges and strategies.Trials · 2025Review
- Article
- Application of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements in Adult Tumor Clinical Trials in China: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Tailored Self-Management App to Support Older Adults With Cancer and Multimorbidity: Development and Usability Testing.JMIR aging · 2024Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes to Achieve Person-Centered Care for Aging People With Kidney Disease.Seminars in nephrologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcomes are considered the gold standard for assessing subjective health status in oncology patients. Electronic assessment of patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) has become increasingly popular in recent years in both clinical trials and practice. However, there is limited evidence on how well older patients with cancer can complete ePRO assessments.
objectiveWe aimed to investigate how well adult patients with cancer of different age ranges could complete ePRO assessments at home and in a treatment facility and to identify factors associated with the ability to complete questionnaires electronically.
methodsThis retrospective longitudinal single-center study involved survivors of cancer who participated in inpatient rehabilitation. Patients completed ePRO assessments before rehabilitation at home (T1) and after rehabilitation at the facility (T2). We analyzed the rate of patients who could complete the ePRO assessment at T1 and T2, the proportion of patients who required assistance, and the time it took patients to complete standardized questionnaires. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify predictors of ePRO completion rate and the need for assistance.
resultsBetween 2017 and 2022, a total of 5571 patients were included in this study. Patients had a mean age of 60.3 (SD 12.2) years (range 18 to 93 years), and 1135 (20.3%) of them were classified as geriatric patients (>70 years). While more than 90% (5060/5571) of all patients completed the ePRO assessment, fewer patients in the age group of >70 years (924/1135, 81.4% at T1 vs 963/1135, 84.8% at T2) completed the assessment. Approximately 19% (1056/5571) of patients reported a need for assistance with the ePRO assessment at home, compared to 6.8% (304/4483) at the institution. Patients older than 70 years had a significantly higher need for assistance than those in younger age groups. Moreover, a gender difference was observed, with older women reporting a higher need for assistance than men (71-80 years: women requiring assistance 215/482, 44.6% vs men 96/350, 27.4%; P<.001 and >80 years: women 102/141, 72.3% vs men 57/112, 50.9%; P<.001). On average, patients needed 4.9 (SD 3.20) minutes to remotely complete a 30-item questionnaire (European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire) and patients in the older age groups took significantly longer compared to younger age groups. Lower age and higher physical functioning were the clearest predictors for both the ePRO completion rate and the need for assistance in the multivariate regression analysis.
conclusionsThis study's results indicate that ePRO assessment is feasible in older individuals with cancer, but older patients may require assistance (eg, from relatives) to complete home-based assessments. It may be more feasible to conduct assessments in-house in this population. Additionally, it is crucial to carefully consider which resources are necessary and available to support patients in using ePRO devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.