Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37733409›Full record

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.

David Riedl, Jens Lehmann, Maria Rothmund, Daniel Dejaco, Vincent Grote, Michael J Fischer, Gerhard Rumpold, Bernhard Holzner, Thomas Licht

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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 · 2025
    Observational
  14. 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 · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

David Riedl *Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Rehabilitation Research, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-0518-3144
Jens Lehmann *University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy Psychosomatics and Medical Psychology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-4670-7517
Maria RothmundUniversity Hospital of Psychiatry II, Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy Psychosomatics and Medical Psychology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-5299-9165
Daniel DejacoDepartment for Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-9176-7415
Vincent GroteLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Rehabilitation Research, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-4421-2449
Michael J FischerLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Rehabilitation Research, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-6345-0813
Gerhard RumpoldUniversity Hospital of Psychiatry II, Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy Psychosomatics and Medical Psychology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-6037-793X
Bernhard HolznerEvaluation Software Development (ESD), Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-3389-3621
Thomas LichtLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Rehabilitation Research, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-1846-0331
Innsbruck Medical University · ATLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Cancer Research · ATParacelsus Medical University · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

NeoplasmsQuality of LifeAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overElectronicsFemaleHumansInpatientsMaleMiddle AgedPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresRetrospective StudiesYoung Adultagecancercompletion rateelderlygeriatricgeriatricsgerontologymobile phoneolder adultolder adultsoncologypatient reportedpatient-reported outcomesquestionnairequestionnairesself-reportedsurveysurveyssurvivorsurvivors

Identifiers

PMID37733409
PMCPMC10557001
OpenAlexW4385701815

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.