Cited by 27Cancer survivorship and careMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Racial differences in user experiences and perceived value of electronic symptom monitoring in a cohort of black and white bladder and prostate cancer patients

Open access
Samuel, Cleo A., Smith, Angela B., Elkins, Wendi, Richmond, Jennifer, Mahbooba, Zahra, Basch, Ethan, Bennett, Antonia V., Chung, Arlene E. +3 more·2021·Quality of Life Research

Abstract

Purpose Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are increasingly being used for symptom monitoring during routine cancer care, but have rarely been evaluated in diverse patient populations. We assessed ePRO user experiences and perceived value among Black and White cancer patients.Methods We recruited 30 Black and 49 White bladder and prostate cancer patients from a single institution. Participants reported symptoms using either a web-based or automated telephone interface over 3 months and completed satisfaction surveys and qualitative interviews focused on user experiences and value. Using a narrative mixed methods approach, we evaluated overall and race-specific differences in ePRO user experiences and perceived value.Results Most participants selected the web-based system, but Blacks were more likely to use the automated telephone-based system than Whites. In satisfaction surveys, Whites more commonly reported ease in understanding and reporting symptoms compared with Blacks. Blacks more often reported that the ePRO system was helpful in facilitating symptom-related discussions with clinicians. During interviews, Blacks described how the ePRO helped them recognize symptoms, while Whites found value in better understanding and tracking symptoms longitudinally. Blacks also expressed preferences for paper-based ePRO options due to perceived ease in better understanding of symptom items.Conclusion Electronic patient-reported outcomes are perceived as valuable for variable reasons by Black and White cancer populations, with greater perceived value for communicating with clinicians reported among Blacks. To optimize equitable uptake of ePROs, oncology practices should offer several ePRO options (e.g., web-based, phone-based), as well as paper-based options, and consider the e-health literacy needs of patients during implementation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11136-020-02442-4

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous studies have demonstrated that when given an option, elderly patients, patients from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and from black ethnicities tend to choose web-based or automated telephone interfaces for ePRO reporting compared to a mobile app interface.

    “Indeed, previous studies have demonstrated that when given an option, elderly patients, patients from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and from black ethnicities tend to choose web-based or automated telephone interfaces for ePRO reporting compared to a mobile app interface.23,36,37”

    From Implementation of a remote symptom monitoring pathway in oncology care: analysis of real-world experience across 33 cancer centres in France and Belgium (2024) · cites this paper as [36]

    The Results (page unavailable) say most participants selected the web-based ePRO system and Black patients were more likely than White patients to use the automated telephone system. The paper does not establish the claimed preferences among elderly or lower-socioeconomic-status patients, and its reported options were web and telephone, not a mobile-app comparator. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Samuel, C. A., Smith, A. B., Elkins, W., Richmond, J., Mahbooba, Z., Basch, E., Bennett, A. V., Chung, A. E., Jonsson, M., Chen, R. C., & Reeve, B. B.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Samuel, Cleo A.
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Published
2020-02-28
Volume
30
Issue
11
Pages
3213-3227
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
OpenAlex
W3008559753
Cited by
27
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • National Institute of Health National Cancer Institute (R01CA174453)
  • National Cancer Institute (1 K01 CA218473-01A1)
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (73921)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
electronic patient-reported outcomes, racial disparities, Black patients, bladder cancer, prostate cancer, symptom monitoring, user experience, perceived value, digital health literacy, patient satisfaction, health equity
MeSH terms
Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Race Factors, Urinary Bladder, Electronics, Humans, Male, Prostatic Neoplasms, Quality of Life

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review