Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care

Roxanne E. Jensen, Claire Snyder, Amy P. Abernethy, Ethan Basch, Arnold L. Potosky, Aaron C. Roberts, Deena R. Loeffler, Bryce B. Reeve

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e215-e222
JournalJournal of Oncology Practice
Volume10
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Patient Outcome Assessment
Neoplasms
Workflow
Electronic Health Records
Physiologic Monitoring
Information Systems
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Research Design
Therapeutics
Survival Rate

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Oncology(nursing)
  • Health Policy
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Jensen, R. E., Snyder, C., Abernethy, A. P., Basch, E., Potosky, A. L., Roberts, A. C., ... Reeve, B. B. (2013). Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care. Journal of Oncology Practice, 10(4), e215-e222. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2013.001067

Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care. / Jensen, Roxanne E.; Snyder, Claire; Abernethy, Amy P.; Basch, Ethan; Potosky, Arnold L.; Roberts, Aaron C.; Loeffler, Deena R.; Reeve, Bryce B.

In: Journal of Oncology Practice, Vol. 10, No. 4, 01.07.2013, p. e215-e222.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jensen, RE, Snyder, C, Abernethy, AP, Basch, E, Potosky, AL, Roberts, AC, Loeffler, DR & Reeve, BB 2013, 'Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care', Journal of Oncology Practice, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. e215-e222. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2013.001067
Jensen, Roxanne E. ; Snyder, Claire ; Abernethy, Amy P. ; Basch, Ethan ; Potosky, Arnold L. ; Roberts, Aaron C. ; Loeffler, Deena R. ; Reeve, Bryce B. / Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care. In: Journal of Oncology Practice. 2013 ; Vol. 10, No. 4. pp. e215-e222.
@article{9e8e9d01fdcc48a7a413ea58a35e73cd,
title = "Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care",
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.",
author = "Jensen, {Roxanne E.} and Claire Snyder and Abernethy, {Amy P.} and Ethan Basch and Potosky, {Arnold L.} and Roberts, {Aaron C.} and Loeffler, {Deena R.} and Reeve, {Bryce B.}",
year = "2013",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1200/JOP.2013.001067",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "e215--e222",
journal = "Journal of Oncology Practice",
issn = "1554-7477",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care

AU - Jensen, Roxanne E.

AU - Snyder, Claire

AU - Abernethy, Amy P.

AU - Basch, Ethan

AU - Potosky, Arnold L.

AU - Roberts, Aaron C.

AU - Loeffler, Deena R.

AU - Reeve, Bryce B.

PY - 2013/7/1

Y1 - 2013/7/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84914160213&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84914160213&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1200/JOP.2013.001067

DO - 10.1200/JOP.2013.001067

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - e215-e222

JO - Journal of Oncology Practice

JF - Journal of Oncology Practice

SN - 1554-7477

IS - 4

ER -