ArticlePalliative medicine2026
Digital patient-reported outcome measures in palliative home care: A feasibility study.
Article in Palliative medicine, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcome measurement supports high quality patient-centred palliative care. Little is known about whether their digital application is feasible in palliative home care.
aimTo test the feasibility of digital patient-reported outcome measure (ePROM) in specialist palliative home care (SPHC)Design:A feasibility study employing a mixed-methods design (Palli-MONITOR Phase II). The tested ePROM intervention was based on the electronic version of the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (eIPOS). Data collection included the recruitment and drop-out rates, ePROM user characteristics and information on technical feasibility, and focus groups with SPHC professionals. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the quantitative data, while focus groups were analysed using the framework approach. Integrated analysis was conducted through joint display. SETTING/
participantsFour German SPHC teams; patients used personal devices to complete eIPOS, with data sent to the SPHC electronic medical record; professionals joined focus groups.
resultsThe overall recruitment rate was 4.7% (82/1744), and 22.7% (82/361) among eligible patients. 60/82 patients completed the study. A total of 470 eIPOS forms were submitted to the SPHC teams. The rate of non-responses for closed-ended IPOS-items was low (max. 5.3%). Professionals noted that recruitment was challenged by patients' unstable conditions, short care duration, time constraints, team attitudes and technical barriers like limited internet access or device unfamiliarity.
conclusionNot all patients in SPHC can use ePROMs due to limited life expectancy and technical barriers. However, consistent and complete use of eIPOS forms indicates that it is feasible for digitally literate patients and can effectively support care.
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.