Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Nonresponse to routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) threatens the representativeness of aggregated data. We characterized patient-, provider-, and clinic-level factors associated with PROMIS Global-10 nonresponse in routine radiation oncology care. In this retrospective cohort study, all adults seen at five Mass General Brigham radiation oncology clinics over one year were included. The primary outcome was patient-level nonresponse, defined as never completing the portal-administered Global-10 versus completing it at least once. Using iterative mixed-effects logistic regression, we modeled patient-, provider-, and clinic-level factors. Among 12,214 patients, 71 providers, and five clinics, patient- and appointment-level response rates were 35.4% and 31.7%, with patient-level response ranging nearly fivefold across clinics (12.8% to 66.2%). In Model 1, male sex, lower education, not working, and recent surgery had higher odds of nonresponse, and longer time since diagnosis lower odds. After provider- and clinic-level factors were added, patient sex, education, and employment became nonsignificant, whereas recent surgery (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.97) and longer time since diagnosis (aOR 0.46 for > 12 months) persisted. A provider’s historical collection rate was protective but attenuated at the clinic level. There, a later program launch (aOR 0.29) and higher historical collection rate (aOR 0.79) correlated with lower nonresponse, whereas academic versus community setting did not. Nonresponse to routinely collected PROMs is a multilevel phenomenon driven substantially by clinic-level implementation factors, not patient characteristics alone. Because response rate is only a proxy for representativeness, PROMs programs and PRO-based performance measures should prioritize representative collection over volume.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: