PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
July 1, 2014Journal of Oncology Practice314 citationsOpen Access

Review of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes Systems Used in Cancer Clinical Care

View Full Paper
RJRoxanne E. JensenCSClaire SnyderAAAmy P. Abernethy

Key Points

  • The aim is to identify existing electronic patient-reported outcomes systems and explore their differences in cancer clinical care.
  • Identified electronic PRO systems via a semistructured review of studies and expert identification.
  • Contacted system developers to gather detailed characteristics using a structured form.
  • Identified 33 unique e-PRO systems in cancer clinical practice.
  • 81% of systems provided detailed information about their characteristics.
  • Patient-centered systems offered more user-friendly features and better integration with electronic health records.

Abstract

PURPOSE: The use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (PRO) systems is increasing in cancer clinical care settings. This review comprehensively identifies existing PRO systems and explores how systems differ in the administration of PRO assessments, the integration of information into the clinic workflow and electronic health record (EHR) systems, and the reporting of PRO information. METHODS: Electronic PRO (e-PRO) systems were identified through a semistructured review of published studies, gray literature, and expert identification. System developers were contacted to provide detailed e-PRO system characteristics and clinical implementation information using a structured review form. RESULTS: A total of 33 unique systems implemented in cancer clinical practice were identified. Of these, 81% provided detailed information about system characteristics. Two system classifications were established: treatment-centered systems designed for patient monitoring during active cancer treatment (n = 8) and patient-centered systems following patients across treatment and survivorship periods (n = 19). There was little consensus on administration, integration, or result reporting between these system types. Patient-centered systems were more likely to provide user-friendly features such as at-home assessments, integration into larger electronic system networks (eg, EHRs), and more robust score reporting options. Well-established systems were more likely to have features that increased assessment flexibility (eg, location, automated reminders) and better clinical integration. CONCLUSION: The number of e-PRO systems has increased. Systems can be programmed to have numerous features that facilitate integration of PRO assessment and routine monitoring into clinical care. Important barriers to system usability and widespread adoption include assessment flexibility, clinical integration, and high-quality data collection and reporting.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Jensen et al. (2014) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0fcad9d13714ec96fe9d7bhttps://doi.org/10.1200/jop.2013.001067
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper