Exploratory analysis of electronic patient-reported outcomes collection: comparing online and in-clinic modalities in cancer care.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Eric Adjei Boakye, Mrudula Nair, Nada Al-Antary, Carl Wilson, Katelyn Kerr, Theresa M Zatirka, Kelly A Hirko, Farah Elsiss, Steven S Chang, Benjamin Movsas, Michael Ryan, Samantha Tam
{"title":"Exploratory analysis of electronic patient-reported outcomes collection: comparing online and in-clinic modalities in cancer care.","authors":"Eric Adjei Boakye, Mrudula Nair, Nada Al-Antary, Carl Wilson, Katelyn Kerr, Theresa M Zatirka, Kelly A Hirko, Farah Elsiss, Steven S Chang, Benjamin Movsas, Michael Ryan, Samantha Tam","doi":"10.1007/s11136-025-03975-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been shown to improve cancer survival but are generally underutilized in cancer care. It is unclear whether electronic-PROMS (ePROMs) modality (online vs. in-clinic) may address barriers to completion. We examined whether patient sociodemographic and clinical factors differed by completion modality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with cancer who had an oncologic provider visit from January 2021 to March 2023 at a tertiary cancer center were assigned the National Institute of Health's computer adaptive technology Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System instruments. Patients completed ePROMs either through online patient portal (online) up to 7 days before the visit or used a tablet at the clinic visit (in-clinic) if not completed online. Multivariable logistic regression model estimated associations between patient sociodemographic and clinical factors and completion modality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 8556 patients completed ePROMs (43.3% completed in-clinic). Females were less likely than males to complete ePROMs in-clinic (aOR = 0.89, 0.84-0.93) as were patients with commercial insurance (aOR = 0.83, 0.77-0.89) vs. Medicare; or saw radiation oncologist (aOR = 0.89, 0.83-0.96) vs. medical oncologist. However, patients were more likely to complete ePROMs in-clinic if they identified as Black race (aOR = 1.41, 1.33-1.49) vs. White; were single (aOR = 1.21, 1.14-1.29) or divorced/separated/widowed (aOR = 1.11, 1.04-1.18) vs. married; or saw a provider located in rural (aOR = 1.33, 1.25-1.42) vs. urban area.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients who were males, Blacks, unmarried, Medicare insured or saw providers located in rural area were more likely to complete ePROMs in-clinic. Given the preference for online completion before visits for real-time symptom monitoring, targeted efforts are needed to boost online PROMs completion.</p><p><strong>Plain message: </strong>This is a cross-sectional analysis of the associations between sociodemographic and clinical factors with two electronic patient reported outcome measures completion modalities. The results indicate that about half of patients completed online and half completed in-clinic, with males, Blacks, patients who were divorced/separated/widowed, had Medicare insurance and saw a medical oncologist completing electronic patient reported outcome measures in-clinic. We support offering both options while addressing barriers to either modality.</p>","PeriodicalId":20748,"journal":{"name":"Quality of Life Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality of Life Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-025-03975-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been shown to improve cancer survival but are generally underutilized in cancer care. It is unclear whether electronic-PROMS (ePROMs) modality (online vs. in-clinic) may address barriers to completion. We examined whether patient sociodemographic and clinical factors differed by completion modality.

Methods: Patients with cancer who had an oncologic provider visit from January 2021 to March 2023 at a tertiary cancer center were assigned the National Institute of Health's computer adaptive technology Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System instruments. Patients completed ePROMs either through online patient portal (online) up to 7 days before the visit or used a tablet at the clinic visit (in-clinic) if not completed online. Multivariable logistic regression model estimated associations between patient sociodemographic and clinical factors and completion modality.

Results: A total of 8556 patients completed ePROMs (43.3% completed in-clinic). Females were less likely than males to complete ePROMs in-clinic (aOR = 0.89, 0.84-0.93) as were patients with commercial insurance (aOR = 0.83, 0.77-0.89) vs. Medicare; or saw radiation oncologist (aOR = 0.89, 0.83-0.96) vs. medical oncologist. However, patients were more likely to complete ePROMs in-clinic if they identified as Black race (aOR = 1.41, 1.33-1.49) vs. White; were single (aOR = 1.21, 1.14-1.29) or divorced/separated/widowed (aOR = 1.11, 1.04-1.18) vs. married; or saw a provider located in rural (aOR = 1.33, 1.25-1.42) vs. urban area.

Conclusions: Patients who were males, Blacks, unmarried, Medicare insured or saw providers located in rural area were more likely to complete ePROMs in-clinic. Given the preference for online completion before visits for real-time symptom monitoring, targeted efforts are needed to boost online PROMs completion.

Plain message: This is a cross-sectional analysis of the associations between sociodemographic and clinical factors with two electronic patient reported outcome measures completion modalities. The results indicate that about half of patients completed online and half completed in-clinic, with males, Blacks, patients who were divorced/separated/widowed, had Medicare insurance and saw a medical oncologist completing electronic patient reported outcome measures in-clinic. We support offering both options while addressing barriers to either modality.

电子患者报告结果收集的探索性分析:比较在线和临床癌症治疗模式。
目的:患者报告结果测量(PROMs)已被证明可以提高癌症生存率,但在癌症治疗中通常未得到充分利用。目前尚不清楚电子proms (ePROMs)模式(在线vs.门诊)是否可以解决完成障碍。我们检查了患者的社会人口学和临床因素是否因完成方式而不同。方法:2021年1月至2023年3月在三级癌症中心接受肿瘤提供者就诊的癌症患者被分配使用美国国立卫生研究院的计算机自适应技术患者报告的结果测量信息系统仪器。患者可以在访问前7天通过在线患者门户网站(在线)完成eprom,或者如果没有在线完成,则在诊所访问时使用平板电脑(在诊所)。多变量logistic回归模型估计了患者社会人口学和临床因素与完成方式之间的关系。结果:共有8556例患者完成了eprom,其中43.3%的患者在临床完成了eprom。女性比男性更不可能在诊所完成eprom (aOR = 0.89, 0.84-0.93),商业保险患者与医疗保险患者(aOR = 0.83, 0.77-0.89);或看放射肿瘤科医生(aOR = 0.89, 0.83-0.96) vs内科肿瘤科医生。然而,如果患者被认定为黑人(aOR = 1.41, 1.33-1.49)比白人更有可能在临床完成eprom;单身(aOR = 1.21, 1.14-1.29)或离婚/分居/丧偶(aOR = 1.11, 1.04-1.18) vs.已婚;农村地区(aOR = 1.33, 1.25-1.42)和城市地区(aOR = 1.33, 1.25-1.42)。结论:男性、黑人、未婚、医疗保险参保或就诊于农村地区的患者更有可能在诊所完成eprom。鉴于人们倾向于在就诊前在线填写以进行实时症状监测,需要有针对性地努力促进在线填写prom。简单的信息:这是一个社会人口学和临床因素之间的关联的横断面分析与两种电子患者报告的结果测量完成方式。结果表明,大约一半的患者完成了在线测试,一半完成了门诊测试,其中男性、黑人、离婚/分居/丧偶的患者、有医疗保险的患者、看到肿瘤医生在门诊完成了电子患者报告的结果测量。我们支持提供两种选择,同时解决任何一种模式的障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Quality of Life Research
Quality of Life Research 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
8.60%
发文量
224
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Quality of Life Research is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the rapid communication of original research, theoretical articles and methodological reports related to the field of quality of life, in all the health sciences. The journal also offers editorials, literature, book and software reviews, correspondence and abstracts of conferences. Quality of life has become a prominent issue in biometry, philosophy, social science, clinical medicine, health services and outcomes research. The journal''s scope reflects the wide application of quality of life assessment and research in the biological and social sciences. All original work is subject to peer review for originality, scientific quality and relevance to a broad readership. This is an official journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信