ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2026
Exploring perceptions of digital patient reported outcome measures: a multi-site qualitative case study in four European oncology outpatient clinics.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDigital Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) can help to promote patient-centred care (PCC). However, they are currently not routinely used, potentially compromising patient outcomes. In this work we sought to (i) explore existing processes, patient and healthcare professionals' (HCP) perceptions of current gaps in PCC and (ii) their views on how a PROMs-based digital system could help to address these gaps in four European oncology outpatient clinics.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative multi-site case study including healthcare staff (organisational leaders, managers and HCPs), patients being treated for cancer and caregivers in four outpatient clinics in Brussels (Belgium), Edinburgh (United Kingdom), Oslo (Norway), and Valencia (Spain). Data were collected through a series of semi-structured interviews to explore existing work practices, needs and attitudes. We also conducted non-participant observations of staff meetings and clinic activities to explore existing processes. Data were analysed through a mixture of inductive and deductive approaches drawing on the Technology, People, Organizations, and Macroenvironmental (TPOM) factors framework.
resultsWe conducted 99 interviews with HCPs, patients and caregivers and 30 observations across the four sites. PCC was regarded as important across all sites. We observed limited existing efforts on systematically recording psychosocial needs of patients. Participants reported concerns that a new digital system to record PROMs may result in increased workloads for clinical staff and adversely impact patient-clinician relationships. Attitudes were influenced by previous experience with digital systems. Organisational leadership and support were viewed as crucial in facilitating adoption, including efforts to train and engage clinical and patient users, making available sufficient resources, and including end-users in system design.
conclusionsWhile digital PROMs have the potential to enhance PCC in cancer, their routine use is often hindered by sociotechnical challenges. This issue persists across different countries. Success in developing and implementing digital PROMs will require tailored system design and implementation strategies being cognisant of various stakeholder needs. This may include supplementing technological aspects of interventions with educational strategies, supporting local adaptations of designs, and aligning with clinician and organisational drivers for implementation.
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.