Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40439819›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2025

Customizing workflows for electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) symptom monitoring using the action, actor, context, target, time (AACTT) framework.

Julia Lai-Kwon, Claudia Rutherford, Michael Jefford, Iris Zhang, Catherine Devereux, Dishan Herath, Kate Burbury, Stephanie Best

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Julia Lai-KwonDepartment of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. Julia.Lai-Kwon@petermac.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5388-1695
Claudia RutherfordCancer Care Research Unit, Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Michael JeffordDepartment of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Iris ZhangDepartment of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Catherine DevereuxDepartment of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Dishan HerathDepartment of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Kate BurburySir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Stephanie BestDepartment of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReal-time electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) symptom monitoring is a complex intervention with few examples of successful implementation at scale. A key challenge is designing a clear ePRO symptom monitoring workflow to support implementation into practice. We aimed to create an empirical and theory-informed site-specific workflow guided by the Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time (AACTT) implementation science framework.

methodsA five-step process was undertaken to customize a generic ePRO symptom monitoring workflow to create a site-specific version: (1) design a generic ePRO symptom monitoring workflow through a qualitative study with key stakeholders; (2) conduct co-design workshops to understand stakeholder preferences regarding a site-specific version; (3) code co-design workshop data using the AACTT framework to produce a provisional site-specific version; (4) conduct a final co-design workshop using the AACTT framework to finalize stakeholder preferences for a site-specific version; and (5) code co-design workshop data using the AACTT framework to produce a final site-specific version.

resultsParticipants (n = 27) included nine patients, four caregivers, four oncologists, four nurses, two pharmacists, two clinic administrators, and two Electronic Medical Record (EMR) analysts. Provisional and final site-specific workflows were generated outlining the key AACTT components for each step of ePRO symptom monitoring.

conclusionWe demonstrated the value in using the AACTT to guide the co-design of a site-specific workflow for ePRO symptom monitoring. By describing this process in detail, we will enable others to replicate this process for creating site-specific workflows not only for ePRO symptom monitoring, but for any complex clinical process.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresWorkflowHumansMaleQualitative ResearchAACTT frameworkImplementation sciencePatient-reported outcomesSymptom monitoringWorkflows

Identifiers

PMID40439819
PMCPMC12274224

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.