Cited by 44Cancer survivorship and careElectronic Health Records SystemsHealth Policy Implementation Science

Implementation of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Routine Cancer Care at an Academic Center: Identifying Opportunities and Challenges

Open access
Sandhu, Sahil, King, Zoe, Wong, Michelle, Bissell, Sean, Sperling, Jessica, Gray, Megan, Ratliff, William, Herring, Kris +1 more·2020·JCO Oncology Practice

Abstract

PURPOSE: Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) can help clinicians proactively assess and manage their patients’ symptoms. Despite known benefits, there is limited adoption of ePROs into routine clinical care as a result of workflow and technologic challenges. This study identifies oncologists’ perspectives on factors that affect integration of ePROs into clinical workflows. METHODS: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with 16 oncologists from a large academic medical center, across diverse subspecialties and cancer types. Oncologists were asked how they currently use or could imagine using ePROs before, during, and after a patient visit. We used an inductive approach to thematically analyze these qualitative data. RESULTS: Results were categorized into the following three main themes: (1) selection and development of ePRO tool, (2) contextual drivers of adoption, and (3) patient-facing concerns. Respondents preferred diagnosis-based ePRO tools over more general symptom screeners. Although they noted information overload as a potential barrier, respondents described strong data visualization and ease of use as facilitators. Contextual drivers of oncologist adoption include identifying target early adopters, incentivizing uptake through use of ePRO data to support billing and documentation, and emphasizing benefits for patient care and efficiency. Respondents also indicated the need to focus on patient-facing issues, such as patient response rate, timing of survey distribution, and validity and reliability of responses. DISCUSSION: Respondents identified several barriers and facilitators to successful uptake of ePROs. Understanding oncologists’ perspectives is essential to inform both practice-level implementation strategies and policy-level decisions to include ePROs in alternative payment models for cancer care.

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 · 10.1200/op.20.00357

Cites

19 of 19 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?

  • Problems connecting digital technologies with electronic health records and existing oncology information systems were reported across ePRO systems, telehealth platforms, mobile applications, and decision-support tools.

    “Problems connecting digital technologies with electronic health records and existing oncology information systems were reported across ePRO systems, telehealth platforms, mobile applications, and decision-support tools [8,32,41,45].”

    From Digital health technologies in oncology services: A scoping review of clinical implementation, organisational evidence gaps, and policy implications (2026) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Discussion reports ePRO workflow problems involving the EHR, including information overload and the lack of out-of-the-box ePRO visualization in widely used EHRs. This supports an EHR-related difficulty for ePROs, but the paper does not report problems connecting telehealth platforms, mobile applications, or decision-support tools to existing oncology systems. It also describes many ePRO barriers as anticipated concerns rather than observed connection failures. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Howell D, Molloy S, Wilkinson K, et al: Patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer clinical practice: A scoping review of use, impact on health outcomes, and implementation factors. Ann Oncol 26:1846-1858, 2015
  2. Boulware LE, Harris GB, Harewood P, et al: Democratizing health system data to impact social and environmental health contexts: A novel collaborative community data-sharing model. J Public Health 10.1093/pubmed/fdz171 [epub ahead of print on January 9, 2020] · DOI
  3. Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, et al: Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant 52:1893-1907, 2018
  4. Basch E, Wilfong L, Schrag D: Adding patient-reported outcomes to Medicare's oncology value-based payment model. JAMA 10.1001/jama.2019.19970 [epub ahead of print on January 2, 2020] · DOI
  5. Weiss D, Rydland HT, Øversveen E, et al: Innovative technologies and social inequalities in health: A scoping review of the literature. PLoS One 13:e0195447, 2018
  6. Richardson LA, Jones GW: A review of the reliability and validity of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. Curr Oncol 16:55, 2009

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sandhu, S., King, Z., Wong, M., Bissell, S., Sperling, J., Gray, M., Ratliff, W., Herring, K., & LeBlanc, T. W.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Venue
JCO Oncology Practice
Published
2020-11
Volume
16
Issue
11
Pages
e1255-e1263
ISSN
  • 2688-1527 (ISSN-L)
  • 2688-1535
OpenAlex
W3085488595
Cited by
44
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JCO Oncology Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
electronic patient-reported outcomes, cancer care, clinical workflow integration, oncologists' perspectives, symptom monitoring, information overload, data visualization, alternative payment models, academic medical centers
MeSH terms
Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Oncologists, Electronics, Humans, Neoplasms, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results

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