SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026
Factors associated with response to patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review of systematic and scoping reviews, and meta-analyses.
Synthesis in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 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
purposeThis study aimed to identify and synthesize factors associated with response to digitally collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) among adult patients, to inform efforts to improve response rates.
methodsWe performed a systematic review of systematic and scoping reviews across five databases. Risk of bias was assessed using A MeaSurement Tool To Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and included in a best-evidence synthesis. Additionally, a meta-analysis was conducted using the primary studies from the included reviews that specifically reported on digitally collected PROMs.
resultsWe identified 43 factors positively, negatively, or not associated with response to digital PROMs, clustered in six domains. Some were modifiable, including the overload or overlap of questions, PROMs irrelevant to the patient, automatic reminders, system usability, and clinicians' follow-up with PROMs. Others were non-modifiable, such as race, language barriers, visual impairments, and comorbidities; many of these factors are shaped by patients' broader social and health-related circumstances and may therefore point to underlying structural or contextual barriers (e.g., limited access to resources, lower literacy, or health-related limitations). Such barriers may ultimately contribute to unequal access to care and are potentially actionable.
conclusionsFactors associated with response to digitally collected PROMs can be clustered into six domains: sociodemographic characteristics, physical health, psychosocial status, PROM characteristics, technological factors, treatment characteristics, and external influences. Although not all factors are directly modifiable, they can inform targeted and tailored interventions to improve response rates across diverse populations and support more equitable access to care. This review provides a structured overview to guide such efforts. Potential interventions could include language simplification, item reduction, follow-up during consultation, tailored reminders, and interface adaptations for patients with specific needs.
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.