Evaluating the use of web versus mobile devices for ePRO reporting and severe symptom responses at 6 cancer centers.
Abstract
241 Background: Monitoring electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) improves quality of life, reduces acute care, and extends survival in cancer patients. Different modalities for collecting ePROs exist. Many efforts focus on mobile apps, but optimal methods for reporting are not well established. We sought to determine whether patient engagement and symptom reporting patterns differed by submission modality. Methods: Through the SIMPRO Consortium, ePRO questionnaires (eSyM) were collected from medical oncology (MO) and surgical (SUR) patients at six health systems between September 2019-March 2022. Questionnaires assessing 12 symptoms plus functional status and overall wellbeing were sent 2-3 times per week via patient portal and made accessible through two modalities: a web platform or mobile device app (mobile). Patterns and predictors of reporting modality were ascertained using descriptive statistics and logistic regression. Results: In total, 6460 patients submitted 47,736 questionnaires: 74% via web and 26% via mobile. Of 2679 MO responders, 53% reported via web, 0.7% via mobile only, and 43% via both. Older, black, and unemployed MO patients were more likely to report via web only. Of 3781 SUR responders, 55% reported via web, 0.3% via mobile only, and 45% via both. Older and unemployed SUR patients were more likely to report via web only; disabled SUR patients were less likely to use web only. Patients utilizing both modalities reported significantly more moderate-severe symptoms than web only responders [Table]. Conclusions: Very few patients reported via mobile only, which was unexpected in the context of trends toward mobile-based patient engagement. Moderate-severe symptoms were reported more frequently by dual-modality responders. Patients with access to both modalities may be more likely to report symptoms in real-time compared to web-users who may delay reporting until they have access to a device. The resulting difference between web and mobile reporting modalities could be due to age, race, and employment; future studies should assess other factors, such as locality and cellular coverage. This work emphasizes the importance of deploying ePROs via multiple modalities to maximize accessibility and response rates. Clinical trial information: NCT03850912. [Table: see text]
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 [37]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Franzoi, M. A., Ferreira, A. R., Lemaire, A., Rodriguez, J., Grosjean, J., Ribeiro, J. M., Polastro, L., Grellety, T., Artignan, X., Le Du, K., et al. (2024) · The Lancet Regional Health - Europe · doi:10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.101005 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
“23,36,37 Dedicated studies are ongoing to evaluate in detail the usability and adoption metrics of the educational and empowerment content provided by the Resilience PRO and its impact on quality of life and symptom burden.”
Background
- Authors
- Cronin, C., Tramontano, A., Schrag, D., Wong, S. L., Osarogiagbon, R. U., Hazard-Jenkins, H. W., Dizon, D. S., Bian, J. J., & Hassett, M. J.
- Affiliations
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
- Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center (US)
- Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis, TN;
- West Virginia University (US)
- Brown University (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2022-10-01
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 28_suppl
- Pages
- 241-241
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W4298142734
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1
- Type
- conference abstract
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. National Institutes of Health.
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- electronic patient-reported outcomes, cancer patients, symptom reporting, patient engagement, patient portals, medical oncology, surgical oncology
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