ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Usability and Acceptance Testing of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Symptom Monitoring System for People Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Mixed Methods Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Patient-reported outcomes in Australian oncology: from emerging practice to system-wide care.Internal medicine journal · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are widely used in oncology but can cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which may be severe or life-threatening if not detected early. Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) symptom monitoring systems may facilitate timely recognition and management of irAEs. Usability testing is a critical stage in ePRO system development, yet no published examples of formal usability and acceptance testing exist. Objective: This study aims to assess the usability and acceptance of a co-designed ePRO symptom monitoring prototype for irAEs embedded within the Epic electronic medical record. Methods: Testing was conducted at an Australian quaternary cancer center. Eligible participants were patients who had received or were receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors, their caregivers, or clinicians (oncologists and nurse specialists). Participants completed baseline digital literacy assessments (16-item Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire [MDPQ-16] and 12-item Computer Proficiency Questionnaire [CPQ-12]) before a structured testing session. Each session involved role-specific tasks using the patient-facing Health Hub or the clinician-facing Epic electronic medical record. Usability was assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS). Acceptance was assessed using a customized Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) questionnaire. Semistructured interviews were used to capture qualitative feedback. Results: A total of 30 participants (7 patients, 3 caregivers, 10 oncologists, and 10 nurse specialists) completed 10 testing sessions. Median MDPQ-16 and CPQ-12 scores were higher for clinicians compared to patients and caregivers. Median SUS scores indicated high usability-patients and caregivers: 77.5% (IQR 70.0%-86.3%), oncologists: 82.5% (IQR 80.0%-90.0%), and nurse specialists: 80.0% (IQR 75.6%-94.4%). Median UTAUT scores demonstrated strong user acceptance-patients or caregivers: 4.27 (IQR 4.09-4.58), oncologists: 4.33 (IQR 4-4.63), and nurse specialists: 4.23 (IQR 3.87-4.57). Health Hub usability themes highlighted overall ease of navigation and efficiency of reporting, but a need for clearer survey navigation, simplification of the actions page, and improved organization of trend graphs. For clinicians, themes included efficient side effect capture and intuitive system design, but a need to improve navigation to results, optimize data display, and facilitate team-based alert management. Health Hub acceptance themes highlighted patient empowerment to self-manage, enhanced patient-clinician communication, and reinforcement of existing care. However, concerns were raised about digital equity for vulnerable groups. Clinicians reported that the system streamlined side effect management between visits, aligned with existing Epic workflows, and could be tailored to personal preferences. Concerns remained regarding additional workload and medico-legal responsibilities associated with real-time alerts. Conclusions: The ePRO prototype demonstrated high levels of usability and acceptance across patients, caregivers, and clinicians. Limitations around navigation and data visualization, alongside equity and workload concerns, will guide refinements prior to implementation. These findings emphasize the value of rigorous formative usability and acceptance testing to optimize ePRO systems prior to deployment in routine cancer 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.