Electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measures Research Articles

Acceptability, Perceptions, and Experiences Regarding Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Feasibility Study.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be defined as any report of a patient's health taken directly from the patient. Routine collection of PRO data has been shown to offer potential benefits to patient-doctor communication. Electronic forms of PRO measures (PROMs) could be more beneficial in comparison to traditional PROMs in obtaining PROs from patients. However, it is currently unclear whether the routine collection of electronic PRO data could result in better outcomes for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). This study aims to explore the perspectives of patients and surgeons on the use of electronic PROMs. Based on prior research, technical skill and experience level of the surgeon, long-term quality of life, patient involvement in decision-making, communication skills of the surgeon, cleanliness of the ward environment, and standards of nursing care are identified to be the most important factors for the patients. This is a mixed methods prospective study that will collect both quantitative (survey) and qualitative (interview) data. The study has two components. The first involves the distribution of an electronic presurvey to patients who received elective LC within 48 hours of their surgery (n=80). This survey will explore the perspective of patients regarding the procedure, hospital experience, long-term outcomes, and the perceived value of using PROMs. These patients will then be followed up after 1 year and given another survey. The second component involves the distribution of the same survey and the completion of structured interviews with general surgeons (n=10). The survey will ascertain what PROs from the participants are most useful for the surgeons and the interviews will focus on how the surgeons view routine PRO collection. A convenience sampling approach will be used. Surveys will be distributed through Qualtrics and interviews will be completed on Microsoft Teams. Data collection began on February 14, 2023. As of February 12, 2024, 71 of 80 recruited patients have been given the presurvey. The follow-up with the patients and the general surgeon components of the study have not begun. The expected completion date of this study is in April 2025. Overall, this study will investigate the potential of electronic PRO collection to offer value for patients and general surgeons. This approach will ensure that patient care is investigated in a multifaceted way, offering patient-centric guidance to surgeons in their approach to care. DERR1-10.2196/57344.

Seizing the moment: The time for harnessing electronic patient-reported outcome measures for enhanced and sustainable metastatic breast cancer care is now

The sustainability of healthcare systems is under pressure. Unlike care for many other chronic diseases, cancer care has yet to empower patients in effectively self-managing both the medical and emotional consequences of their condition, including adapting to changes in lifestyle and work, which is essential to achieve optimal health and recovery. Although proposed as a potential solution for sustainable healthcare and support for optimal health and recovery already decades ago, practical implementation of digital care lags behind.We believe electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) could play an important role in creating sustainable healthcare, both to guide complex treatment pathways and to empower survivors to self-manage consequences of diagnosis and treatment. That is, ePROMs can be used for screening and monitoring of symptoms, but also for treatment decision-making and to facilitate communication about quality of life. We therefore see opportunities for improvements in quality of care, quality of life, and survival of cancer patients, as well as research opportunities, as ePROMs collection can lead to better understanding of care needs. The ‘10 Actions for Change report’ of the Advanced Breast Cancer Global Alliance stresses a critical need for improvement of care for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. We therefore in this paper focus on MBC care and research.

Implementing Systematic Patient-Reported Measures for Chronic Conditions Through the Naveta Value-Based Telemedicine Initiative: Observational Retrospective Multicenter Study.

Patient-reported outcome and experience measures can play a critical role in providing patient-centered and value-based health care to a growing population of patients who are chronically ill. Value-based telemedicine platforms such as the Naveta initiative may facilitate the effective integration of these tools into health care systems. This study aims to evaluate the response rate to electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) and electronic patient-reported experience measures (ePREMs) among patients participating in the Naveta telemedicine initiative and its correlations with sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, as well as the evolution of the response rates over time. Between January 1, 2021, and June 30, 2023, a total of 53,364 ePREMs and ePROMs for 20 chronic conditions were administered through the Naveta-Phemium platform. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize continuous and categorical variables. Differences in response rates within each sociodemographic variable were analyzed using logistic regression models, with significance assessed via chi-square and post hoc Tukey tests. Two-way ANOVA was used to examine the interaction between time interval and disease type on response rate evolution. A total of 3372 patients with severe chronic diseases from 64 public hospitals in Spain participated in the Naveta health questionnaire project. The overall response rate to ePROMs and ePREMs during the first 2.5 years of the Naveta initiative was 46.12% (24,704/53,364), with a baseline rate of 53.33% (7198/13,496). Several sociodemographic factors correlated with lower response rates, including male gender, older age, lower education level, frequent alcohol use, being a student, and not being physically active. There were also significant variations in response rates among different types of chronic conditions (P<.001), with the highest rates being for respiratory (433/606, 71.5%), oncologic (200/319, 62.7%), digestive (2247/3601, 62.4%), and rheumatic diseases (7506/12,982, 57.82%) and the lowest being for HIV infection (7473/22,695, 32.93%). During the first 6 months of follow-up, the response rates decreased in all disease types, except in the case of the group of patients with oncologic disease, among whom the response rate increased up to 100% (6/6). Subsequently, the overall response rate approached baseline levels. Recognizing the influence of sociodemographic factors on response rates is critical to identifying barriers to participation in telemonitoring programs and ensuring inclusiveness in patient-centered health care practices. The observed decline in response rates at follow-up may be due to survey fatigue, highlighting the need for strategies to mitigate this effect. In addition, the variation in response rates across chronic conditions emphasizes the importance of tailoring telemonitoring approaches to specific patient populations.

Exploring patient perspectives on electronic patient-reported outcome measures in home-based cancer palliative care: A qualitative study.

Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROMs) enhance symptom management and patients' engagement in palliative cancer care. However, integrating them into this setting brings challenges, including patients' familiarity with technological devices and declining health status. Prioritizing the patient's acceptability and feasibility is crucial for their adoption. However, more knowledge is needed about patients' perspectives on the adoption of ePROMs in the community, especially for home-based palliative care. Explore patient viewpoints on utilizing ePROMs for symptom reporting in home-based oncology palliative care. A qualitative interpretative approach was used to evaluate patients' points of view on using ePROMs in this specific care setting. Semistructured interviews were carried out. Data were analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis. A total of 25 patients receiving oncological home palliative care from the advanced palliative care unit of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori in Milan, Italy, were invited to participate. Twenty interviews were conducted, as five patients declined due to deteriorating health. Four themes were identified: (1) strategic value of ePROMs and subjective appreciation; (2) enhancing patient centeredness through ePROMs; (3) exploring and addressing concerns about the use of ePROMs and (4) intersecting factors influencing the efficacy of ePROMs. Despite initial reticence, home palliative care patients consider ePROMs as potentially valuable allies monitoring symptoms, enhancing their quality of life, and amplifying their voices on less explored aspects of care. Continuous dialog between healthcare professionals and patients is crucial for addressing patient skepticism about ePROMs and their impact on the human aspect of care.

Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROs) as tools for assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in women with gynecologic and breast cancers: a systematic review.

To provide a comprehensive review of the use of electronic patient-reported outcomes measures (ePROs) as digital health tools to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in women with breast, ovarian, cervical, and endometrial cancers. A systematic review was conducted to identify studies that used ePROs to evaluate HRQoL in women diagnosed with breast and gynecological cancers. The review followed the 2020 update of the PRISMA guidelines and a pre-registered protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42024516737). Inclusion criteria encompassed studies focusing on ePROs for HRQoL assessment in the specified cancers, without language restrictions, and published between January 2000 and December 2023. Studies were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts to identify eligible studies. The search yielded 4978 articles. After removing duplicates, 900 articles were assessed for eligibility by screening the titles and abstracts. After screening the full text of 168 articles, a total of 16 studies were included in this systematic review. These studies were mainly conducted in Europe and the Americas and included different study designs such as randomized controlled trials (four articles), prospective studies (seven articles), and feasibility and validation studies (five articles). The majority of the studies focused on breast cancer (87.5%), with fewer studies addressing ovarian and cervical cancers. A variety of ePRO tools were used, including the FACT and EORTC QLQ. Findings show that ePROs enhance therapeutic management, treatment adherence, and HRQoL through improved symptom monitoring and communication between patients and providers. The integration of ePROs in oncology care facilitates a patient-centered approach, enhances communication between patients and healthcare providers, and supports personalized treatment strategies. These findings underscore the importance of incorporating ePROs into routine cancer care to improve overall patient outcomes and HRQoL.

Involving Patients and Clinicians in the Design of Wireframes for Cancer Medicines Electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Care: Mixed Methods Study.

Cancer treatment is a key component of health care systems, and the increasing number of cancer medicines is expanding the treatment landscape. However, evidence of the impact on patients has been focused more on chemotherapy toxicity and symptom control and less on the effect of cancer medicines more broadly on patients' lives. Evolving electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) presents the opportunity to secure early engagement of patients and clinicians in shaping the collection of quality-of-life metrics and presenting these data to better support the patient-clinician decision-making process. The aim of this study was to obtain initial feedback from patients and clinicians on the wireframes of a digital solution (patient app and clinician dashboard) for the collection and use of cancer medicines ePROMs. We adopted a 2-stage, mixed methods approach. Stage 1 (March to June 2019) consisted of interviews and focus groups with cancer clinicians and patients with cancer to explore the face validity of the wireframes, informed by the technology acceptance model constructs (perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and behavioral intention to use). In stage 2 (October 2019 to February 2020), the revised wireframes were assessed through web-based, adapted technology acceptance model questionnaires. Qualitative data (stage 1) underwent a framework analysis, and descriptive statistics were performed on quantitative data (stage 2). Clinicians and patients with cancer were recruited from NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, the largest health board in Scotland. A total of 14 clinicians and 19 patients participated in a combination of stage 1 interviews and focus groups. Clinicians and patients indicated that the wireframes of a patient app and clinician dashboard for the collection of cancer medicines ePROMs would be easy to use and could focus discussions, and they would be receptive to using such tools in the future. In stage 1, clinicians raised the potential impact on workload, and both groups identified the need for adequate IT skills to use each technology. Changes to the wireframes were made, and in stage 2, clinicians (n=8) and patients (n=16) indicated it was "quite likely" that the technologies would be easy to use and they would be "quite likely" to use them in the future. Notably, clinicians indicated that they would use the dashboard to enable treatment decisions "with around half" of their patients. This study emphasizes the importance of consulting both patients and clinicians in the design of digital solutions. The wireframes were perceived positively by patients and clinicians who were willing to use such technologies if available in the future as part of routine care. However, challenges were raised, and some differences were identified between participant groups, which warrant further research.

Best Practice Recommendations for Electronic Clinical Outcome Assessment Data Changes

Historically, there was a tendency amongst electronic clinical outcome assessment (eCOA) service providers and their sponsor clients to prevent changes to eCOA data, particularly for electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) measures, or to allow changes to eCOA data but only after receiving sponsor approval to do so. Further, sponsors were also approving or denying data change requests (DCRs).From 2018 to 2022, 45 representatives of Critical Path (C-Path) Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium, eCOA Consortium (previously ePRO Consortium), and the eClinical Forum collaborated to develop guidelines on changes to eCOA data. These were compiled into the present manuscript, which outlines best practices aligned to latest health authority guidance, and based on expertise from all three organizations.This work coincided with a shift in clinical trial industry practices and emergence of regulations and quality functions that require that investigative sites, not sponsors, be responsible for the maintenance of accurate source records. In other words, the question was not whether, but how, PRO data should be changed. The resulting set of core principles can become the foundation upon which sponsors, investigators and eCOA providers can work together on DCRs.To achieve that, eCOA studies must:• be setup in a manner that minimizes potential user errors;• have a documented oversight plan and documented site staff training;• follow clearly defined and standard workflows–but also mitigate undefined change types;• allow trial documentation per ALCOA+ principles; and• induce sponsors into timely reviews and reconciliations of discordant data (i.e., via sensitivity&amp;nbsp;analysis) and not by arbitrarily overruling the investigators.

Electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Optimal Remote Symptom Management in Advanced Breast Cancer: Embracing Digital Health Technology

ObjectiveTo review the use of electronic patient outcome measures (ePROMs) in advanced breast cancer (ABC) and its effectiveness in supporting remote symptom monitoring. Data SourcesAn overview of published randomized controlled trials using electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in ABC care. ConclusionThe use of ePROMs in ABC care combined with oncology clinical nurse specialist (CNS) interventions has shown that patient-centered care through remote monitoring of disease and treatment symptoms can improve ABC patient outcomes and experience. Implications for Nursing PracticeOncology clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) have an important role in the effective implementation of ePROMs in ABC care. CNSs are considered most appropriate to lead on and respond to ePROMs, addressing complex symptom issues and maximizing the quality of life (QoL) for the ABC patient. CNSs are a crucial link between the patient, primary and secondary level care health professionals, and the ePROM portal for ABC care.

Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes in Routine Cancer Clinical Care Using Electronic Administration and Telehealth Technologies: Realist Synthesis of Potential Mechanisms for Improving Health Outcomes.

The routine measurement of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical care using electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) is gaining momentum worldwide. However, a deep understanding of the mechanisms underpinning ePROM interventions that could inform their optimal design to improve health outcomes is needed. This study aims to identify the implicit mechanisms that underpin the effectiveness of ePROM interventions and develop program theories about how and when ePROM interventions improve health outcomes. A realist synthesis of the literature about ePROM interventions in cancer clinical care was performed. A conceptual framework of ePROM interventions was constructed to define the scope of the review and frame the initial program theories. Literature searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL, supplemented by citation tracking, were performed to identify relevant literature to develop, refine, and test program theories. Quality appraisal of relevant studies was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Overall, 61 studies were included in the realist synthesis: 15 (25%) mixed methods studies, 9 (15%) qualitative studies, 13 (21%) descriptive studies, 21 (34%) randomized controlled trials, and 3 (5%) quasi-experimental studies. In total, 3 initial program theories were developed regarding the salient components of ePROM interventions-remote self-reporting, real-time feedback to clinicians, and clinician-patient telecommunication. The refined theories posit that remote self-reporting enables patients to recognize and report symptoms accurately and empowers them to communicate these to clinicians, real-time feedback prompts clinicians to manage symptoms proactively, and clinician-patient telephone interactions and e-interactions between clinic encounters improve symptom management by reshaping how clinicians and patients communicate. However, the intervention may not achieve the intended benefit if ePROMs become a reminder to patients of their illness and are not meaningful to them and when real-time feedback to clinicians lacks relevance and increases the workload. The key to improving health outcomes through ePROM interventions is enabling better symptom reporting and communication through remote symptom self-reporting, promoting proactive management of symptoms through real-time clinician feedback, and facilitating clinician-patient interactions. Patient engagement with self-reporting and clinician engagement in responding to feedback are vital and may reinforce each other in improving outcomes. Effective ePROM interventions might fundamentally alter how clinicians and patients interact between clinic encounters.

Feasibility of Symptom monitoring WIth Feedback Trial (SWIFT) for adults on hemodialysis: a registry-based cluster randomized pilot trial

BackgroundPatients with kidney failure on hemodialysis (HD) experience considerable symptom burden and poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There is limited use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in facility HD units to direct immediate care, with response rates in other studies between 36 to 70%. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate feasibility of electronic PROMs (e-PROMs) in HD participants, with feedback 3-monthly to the participants’ treating team, for severe or worsening symptoms as identified by the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS-Renal), with linkage to the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) registry, compared with usual care.MethodsThis is a registry-based cluster-randomized controlled pilot trial involving all adults receiving HD in 4 satellite units in Australia over a 6-month period. HD units were cluster randomized 1:1 to the control (HRQoL data collection only) or intervention arm (symptom monitoring with feedback to treating team every 3 months). Feasibility was assessed by participant response rate (percentage of eligible HD participants, including new incident participants, who completed the questionnaire at each time point); retention rate (percentage of participants who completed the baseline questionnaire and all subsequent measures); and completion time. HRQoL and symptom burden scores are described.ResultsThere were 226 unique participants who completed the e-PROMs (mean age 62 years, 69% males, 78% White-European, median dialysis vintage 1.62 years). At 6 months, response rate and retention rate for the intervention arm were 54% and 68%, respectively, and 89% and 97% in the control arm. Median time to complete IPOS-Renal was 6.6 min (5.3, 10.1) at 3 months, and when combined with the outcome measure (EQ-5D-5L), the median time was 9.4 min (6.9, 13.6) at 6 months.ConclusionsElectronic symptom monitoring among HD participants with feedback to clinicians is feasible. Variations in response and retention rates could be potentially explained by the lengthier questionnaire, and higher frequency of data collection time points for participants in the intervention arm. A definitive national RCT is underway.Trial registrationACTRN12618001976279 (07/12/2018).

Implementing cancer symptom management interventions utilizing patient-reported outcomes: a pre-implementation evaluation of barriers and facilitators

PurposeSymptoms can negatively impact quality of life for patients with a history of cancer. Digital, electronic health record (EHR)-integrated approaches to routine symptom monitoring accompanied by evidence-based interventions for symptom management have been explored as a scalable way to improve symptom management, particularly between clinic visits. However, little research has evaluated barriers and facilitators to implementing these approaches in real-world settings, particularly during the pre-implementation phase. Pre-implementation assessment is critical for informing the selection and sequencing of implementation strategies and intervention adaptation. Thus, this study sought to understand pre-implementation perceptions of a remote cancer symptom monitoring and management intervention that uses electronic patient-reported outcome measures for symptom assessment.MethodsWe interviewed 20 clinical and administrative stakeholders from 4 geographic regions within an academic medical center and its affiliated health system during the months prior to initiation of a stepped-wedge, cluster randomized pragmatic trial. Transcripts were coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research [CFIR] 2.0. Two study team members reviewed coded transcripts to understand how determinants were relevant in the pre-implementation phase of the trial and prepared analytic memos to identify themes.ResultsFindings are summarized in four themes: (1) ability of the intervention to meet patient needs [recipient characteristics], (2) designing with care team needs in mind [innovation design and adaptability], (3) fit of the intervention with existing practice workflows [compatibility], and (4) engaging care teams early [engaging deliverers].ConclusionAttention to these aspects when planning intervention protocols can promote intervention compatibility with patients, providers, and practices thereby increasing implementation success.

Disconnected: Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Collection in Orthopaedic Patients is Less Successful Than In-Person Collection at an Urban Safety Net Trauma Center.

Electronic patient-reported outcome measure (E-PROM) collection is a technological advancement that has the potential to facilitate PROM collection in orthopaedic trauma. The purpose of this study was to compare E-PROM versus in-person PROM collection. This is a retrospective comparative study. Urban Level I trauma center. One hundred and fifty consecutive operative orthopaedic trauma patients. The Percent of Normal single assessment numerical evaluation and patient-reported outcomes measurement information system physical function were collected through automated e-mails from an online patient-engagement platform (PatientIQ, Chicago, IL) 2-week, 6-week, 3-month, and 6-month postoperatively. The Percent of Normal was also administered to patients in clinic at the same time intervals. Completion of PROMs; Loss to follow-up. The median clinical follow-up time was 4 months (interquartile range: 1.3-6 months), and 42.7% (64/150) were lost to follow-up. Loss to follow-up was associated with a more disadvantaged area deprivation index [observed difference, 7.0, 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 13.0; P = 0.01] and noncommercial/no insurance (observed difference 34.8%, confidence interval, 20.9%-45.5%; P < 0.0001). In-person PROM collection was more successful than E-PROM collection at all intervals [2-week (51.3% vs 20.7), 6-week (46.7% vs 20.0%), 3-month (50.0% vs 18.7%), and 6-month (38.0% vs 18.7%), P < 0.0001]. Patients who completed 3-month E-PROMs had longer clinical follow-up (5.2 vs. 3.0 months, P = 0.004) and a trend of being less likely to be lost to follow-up (28.6% vs 45.9%, P = 0.13). E-PROMs were less successful than in-person PROM collection in trauma patients at an urban safety net trauma center. Diagnostic Level III.

Best Practices for the Electronic Implementation and Migration of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

While the use of electronic methods to collect patient-reported outcome data in clinical trials continues to increase, it remains the case that many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have originally been developed and validated on paper. Careful consideration during the move from paper PROMs to electronic format is required to preserve the integrity of the measure and ensure a “faithful migration.” Relevant literature has long called out the importance of following migration best practices during this process; nevertheless, such best practices are distributed across multiple documents. This article consolidates and builds upon existing electronic PROM implementation best practice recommendations to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date, single point of reference. It reflects the current consensus based on the significant advances in technology capabilities and knowledge gleaned from the growing evidence base on electronic migration and implementation, to balance the need for maintaining the integrity of the measure while optimizing respondent usability. It also specifies whether the practice is rooted in evidence or expert consensus, to enable those using these best practices to make informed and considered decisions when conducting migration.

CN1 Integrating an electronic patient reported outcome measure (ePROM) into a nurse-led rare cancer pathway

CN1 Integrating an electronic patient reported outcome measure (ePROM) into a nurse-led rare cancer pathway

Usability of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Older Patients With Cancer: Secondary Analysis of Data from an Observational Single Center Study.

Patient-reported outcomes are considered the gold standard for assessing subjective health status in oncology patients. Electronic assessment of patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) has become increasingly popular in recent years in both clinical trials and practice. However, there is limited evidence on how well older patients with cancer can complete ePRO assessments. We aimed to investigate how well adult patients with cancer of different age ranges could complete ePRO assessments at home and in a treatment facility and to identify factors associated with the ability to complete questionnaires electronically. This retrospective longitudinal single-center study involved survivors of cancer who participated in inpatient rehabilitation. Patients completed ePRO assessments before rehabilitation at home (T1) and after rehabilitation at the facility (T2). We analyzed the rate of patients who could complete the ePRO assessment at T1 and T2, the proportion of patients who required assistance, and the time it took patients to complete standardized questionnaires. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify predictors of ePRO completion rate and the need for assistance. Between 2017 and 2022, a total of 5571 patients were included in this study. Patients had a mean age of 60.3 (SD 12.2) years (range 18 to 93 years), and 1135 (20.3%) of them were classified as geriatric patients (>70 years). While more than 90% (5060/5571) of all patients completed the ePRO assessment, fewer patients in the age group of >70 years (924/1135, 81.4% at T1 vs 963/1135, 84.8% at T2) completed the assessment. Approximately 19% (1056/5571) of patients reported a need for assistance with the ePRO assessment at home, compared to 6.8% (304/4483) at the institution. Patients older than 70 years had a significantly higher need for assistance than those in younger age groups. Moreover, a gender difference was observed, with older women reporting a higher need for assistance than men (71-80 years: women requiring assistance 215/482, 44.6% vs men 96/350, 27.4%; P<.001 and >80 years: women 102/141, 72.3% vs men 57/112, 50.9%; P<.001). On average, patients needed 4.9 (SD 3.20) minutes to remotely complete a 30-item questionnaire (European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire) and patients in the older age groups took significantly longer compared to younger age groups. Lower age and higher physical functioning were the clearest predictors for both the ePRO completion rate and the need for assistance in the multivariate regression analysis. This study's results indicate that ePRO assessment is feasible in older individuals with cancer, but older patients may require assistance (eg, from relatives) to complete home-based assessments. It may be more feasible to conduct assessments in-house in this population. Additionally, it is crucial to carefully consider which resources are necessary and available to support patients in using ePRO devices.

The Clinical Impact of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Remote Monitoring of Inflammatory Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

The inflammatory arthritides (IAs) make up a significant proportion of conditions followed up in rheumatology clinics. These patients require regular monitoring, but this is increasingly difficult with rising patient numbers and demand on clinics. Our objective is to evaluate the clinical impact of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) as a digital remote-monitoring intervention on disease activity, treatment decisions, and health care resource use in patients with IA. Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched, with randomized controlled trials and (nonrandomized) controlled clinical trials included, and meta-analysis and forest plots conducted for each outcome. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias-2 tool and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions. Eight studies were included with a total of 4,473 patients, with seven studies assessing patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Compared with control, the disease activity in the ePROM group was lower (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.27 to -0.03) and rates of remission/low disease activity were higher (odds ratio1.65; 95% CI 1.02-2.68), but five of eight studies provided additional combined interventions (e.g., disease education). Fewer face to face visits were needed in the remote ePROM group (SMD -0.93; 95% CI -2.14-0.28). Most studies were at high risk of bias with significant heterogeneity in design, but our results suggest there is an advantage in using ePROM monitoring in patients with IAs, with the potential for reduction in health care resource use without detrimental impact in disease outcomes.

Research Trends of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Orthopedic Medical Practices: A Bibliometric and Visualized Study.

Background and Objectives: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), also known as self-report measures, are critical tools for evaluating health outcomes by gathering information directly from patients without external interpretation. There has been a growing trend in the number of publications focusing on PROMs in orthopedic-related research. This study aims to identify the most valuable publications, influential journals, leading researchers, and core countries in this field using bibliometric analysis, providing researchers with an understanding of the current state and future trends of PROMs in orthopedic research. Materials and Methods: All PROMs in orthopedic-related publications from 1991 to 2022 were obtained from the WoSCC database. R software (version 4.2.2), VOSviewer (version 1.6.17), and Microsoft Excel (version 2303) were used for the bibliometric and visual analysis. Results: A total of 2273 publication records were found from 1991 to 2022. The results indicated that the United States (US) has made significant contributions to orthopedic-related PROMs. The majority of active research institutions are located in the US. J ORTHOP RES has published the most articles. J BONE JOINT SURG AM has the highest total citations. Conclusions: Our study provides a valuable reference for further exploration of the application of PROMs in orthopedics. PROMs have emerged as an increasingly popular area of research within the field of orthopedics, both in clinical practice and academic research. We conducted a bibliometric analysis in terms of journals, authors, countries, and institutions in this field. Additionally, we analyzed the potentialities and advantages of using PROMs in orthopedic research. There is an increasing trend towards using network-based or short message service (SMS)-based electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in orthopedic medical practices. It is anticipated that the role of PROMs in psychological and mental health research and telemedicine will continue to grow in importance.

Health Status of US Patients With One or More Health Conditions: Using a Novel Electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measure Producing Single Metric Measures.

Most existing research studying health status impacted by morbidity has focused on a specific health condition, and most instruments used for measuring health status are neither patient-centered nor preference-based. This study aims to report on the health status of patients impacted by one or more health conditions, measured by a patient-centered and preference-based electronic patient-reported outcome measure. A cross-sectional study was conducted among patients with one or more health conditions in the United States. A novel generic, patient-centered, and preference-based electronic patient-reported outcome measure: Château Santé-Base, was used to measure health status. Individual health state was expressed as a single metric number (value). We compared these health-state values between sociodemographic subgroups, between separate conditions, between groups with or without comorbidity, and between different combinations of multimorbidity. The total sample comprised 3913 patients. Multimorbidity was present in 62% of the patients. The most prevalent health conditions were pain (50%), fatigue/sleep problems (40%), mental health problems (28%), respiratory diseases (22%), and diabetes (18%). The highest (best) and lowest health-state values were observed in patients with diabetes and mental health problems. Among combinations of multimorbidity, the lowest values were observed when mental health problems were involved, the second lowest values were observed when fatigue/sleep problems and respiratory diseases coexisted. This study compared health status across various single, and multiple (multimorbidity and comorbidity) health conditions directly, based on single metric health-state values. The insights are valuable in clinical practice and policy-making.

Diversified caregiver input to upgrade the Young Children’s Participation and Environment Measure for equitable pediatric re/habilitation practice

BackgroundPractitioner and family experiences of pediatric re/habilitation can be inequitable. The Young Children’s Participation and Environment Measure (YC-PEM) is an evidence-based and promising electronic patient-reported outcome measure that was designed with and for caregivers for research and practice. This study examined historically minoritized caregivers’ responses to revised YC-PEM content modifications and their perspectives on core intelligent virtual agent functionality needed to improve its reach for equitable service design.MethodsCaregivers were recruited during a routine early intervention (EI) service visit and met five inclusion criteria: (1) were 18 + years old; (2) identified as the parent or legal guardian of a child 0–3 years old enrolled in EI services for 3 + months; (3) read, wrote, and spoke English; (4) had Internet and telephone access; and (5) identified as a parent or legal guardian of a Black, non-Hispanic child or as publicly insured. Three rounds of semi-structured cognitive interviews (55–90 min each) used videoconferencing to gather caregiver feedback on their responses to select content modifications while completing YC-PEM, and their ideas for core intelligent virtual agent functionality. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, cross-checked for accuracy, and deductively and inductively content analyzed by multiple staff in three rounds.ResultsEight Black, non-Hispanic caregivers from a single urban EI catchment and with diverse income levels (Mdn = $15,001–20,000) were enrolled, with children (M = 21.2 months, SD = 7.73) enrolled in EI. Caregivers proposed three ways to improve comprehension (clarify item wording, remove or simplify terms, add item examples). Environmental item edits prompted caregivers to share how they relate and respond to experiences with interpersonal and institutional discrimination impacting participation. Caregivers characterized three core functions of a virtual agent to strengthen YC-PEM navigation (read question aloud, visual and verbal prompts, more examples and/or definitions).ConclusionsResults indicate four ways that YC-PEM content will be modified to strengthen how providers screen for unmet participation needs and determinants to design pediatric re/habilitation services that are responsive to family priorities. Results also motivate the need for user-centered design of an intelligent virtual agent to strengthen user navigation, prior to undertaking a community-based pragmatic trial of its implementation for equitable practice.

Clinical Integration of Digital Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Primary Health Care for Chronic Disease Management: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

Health measurement guides policies and health care decisions are necessary to describe and attain the quintuple aim of improving patient experience, population health, care team well-being, health care costs, and equity. In the primary care setting, patient-reported outcome measurement allows outcome comparisons within and across settings and helps improve the clinical management of patients. However, these digital patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are still not adapted to the clinical context of primary health care, which is an indication of the complexity of integrating these tools in this context. We must then gather evidence of their impact on chronic disease management in primary health care and understand the characteristics of effective implementation. We will conduct a systematic review to identify and assess the impact of electronic PROMs (ePROMs) implementation in primary health care for chronic disease management. Our specific objectives are to (1) determine the impact of ePROMs in primary health care for chronic disease management and (2) compare and contrast characteristics of effective ePROMs' implementation strategies. We will conduct a systematic review of the literature in accordance with the guidelines of the Cochrane Methods Group and in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for its reporting. A specific search strategy was developed for relevant databases to identify studies. Two reviewers will independently apply the inclusion criteria using full texts and will extract the data. We will use a 2-phase sequential mixed methods synthesis design by conducting a qualitative synthesis first, and use its results to perform a quantitative synthesis. This study was initiated in June 2022 by assembling the research team and the knowledge transfer committee. The preliminary search strategy will be developed and completed in September 2022. The main search strategy, data collection, study selection, and application of inclusion criteria were completed between October and December 2022. Results from this review will help support implementation efforts to accelerate innovations and digital adoption for primary health care and will be relevant for improving clinical management of chronic diseases and health care services and policies. PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022333513; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=333513. DERR1-10.2196/48155.