Background: “Patient Voices” is a software developed to promote the systematic collection of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in routine oncology clinical practice. Objective: This study aimed to assess compliance with and feasibility of the Patient Voices ePROM system and analyze patient-related barriers in an Italian comprehensive cancer center. Methods: Consecutive patients with cancer attending 3 outpatient clinics and 3 inpatient wards were screened for eligibility (adults, native speakers, and being able to fill in the ePROMs) and enrolled in a quantitative and qualitative multimethod study. Compliance, reasons for not administering the ePROMs, patients’ interaction needs, and patient-perceived System Usability Scale (range 0-100) were collected; semistructured interviews were carried out in a subsample of patients. Results: From June 2020 to September 2021, a total of 435 patients were screened, 421 (96.7%) were eligible, and 309 completed the ePROMs (309/421, 73.4%; 95% CI 69.8%-77.5%; mean age 63.3, SD 13.7 years). Organization problems and patient refusal were the main reasons for not administering the ePROMs (outpatients: 40/234, 17.1% and inpatients: 44/201, 21.9%). Help for tablet use was needed by 27.8% (47/169) of outpatients and 10.7% (15/140) of inpatients, while the support received for item interpretation was similar in the 2 groups (outpatients: 36/169, 21.3% and inpatients: 26/140, 18.6%). Average System Usability Scale scores indicated high usability in both groups (outpatients: mean 86.8, SD 15.8 and inpatients: mean 83.9, SD 18.8). Overall, repeated measurement compliance was 76.9% (173/225; outpatients only). Interviewed patients showed positive attitudes toward ePROMs. However, there are barriers to implementation related to the time and cognitive effort required to complete the questionnaires. There is also skepticism about the usefulness of ePROMs in interactions with health care professionals. Conclusions: This study provides useful information for future ePROM implementation strategies, aimed at effectively supporting the routine clinical management and care of patients with cancer. In addition, these findings may be relevant to other organizations willing to systematically collect PROMs or ePROMs in their clinical routines.

Patient Voices: Multimethod Study on the Feasibility of Implementing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in a Comprehensive Cancer Center / C. Brunelli, S. Alfieri, E. Zito, M. Spelta, L. Arba, L. Lombi, L. Caselli, A. Caraceni, C. Borreani, A. Roli, R. Miceli, G. Tine', E. Zecca, M. Platania, G. Procopio, N. Nicolai, L. Battaglia, L. Lozza, M. Shkodra, G. Massa, D. Loiacono, G. Apolone. - In: JMIR CANCER. - ISSN 2369-1999. - 11:(2025), pp. e56625.1-e56625.16. [10.2196/56625]

Patient Voices: Multimethod Study on the Feasibility of Implementing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in a Comprehensive Cancer Center

A. Caraceni;G. Massa;
2025

Abstract

Background: “Patient Voices” is a software developed to promote the systematic collection of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in routine oncology clinical practice. Objective: This study aimed to assess compliance with and feasibility of the Patient Voices ePROM system and analyze patient-related barriers in an Italian comprehensive cancer center. Methods: Consecutive patients with cancer attending 3 outpatient clinics and 3 inpatient wards were screened for eligibility (adults, native speakers, and being able to fill in the ePROMs) and enrolled in a quantitative and qualitative multimethod study. Compliance, reasons for not administering the ePROMs, patients’ interaction needs, and patient-perceived System Usability Scale (range 0-100) were collected; semistructured interviews were carried out in a subsample of patients. Results: From June 2020 to September 2021, a total of 435 patients were screened, 421 (96.7%) were eligible, and 309 completed the ePROMs (309/421, 73.4%; 95% CI 69.8%-77.5%; mean age 63.3, SD 13.7 years). Organization problems and patient refusal were the main reasons for not administering the ePROMs (outpatients: 40/234, 17.1% and inpatients: 44/201, 21.9%). Help for tablet use was needed by 27.8% (47/169) of outpatients and 10.7% (15/140) of inpatients, while the support received for item interpretation was similar in the 2 groups (outpatients: 36/169, 21.3% and inpatients: 26/140, 18.6%). Average System Usability Scale scores indicated high usability in both groups (outpatients: mean 86.8, SD 15.8 and inpatients: mean 83.9, SD 18.8). Overall, repeated measurement compliance was 76.9% (173/225; outpatients only). Interviewed patients showed positive attitudes toward ePROMs. However, there are barriers to implementation related to the time and cognitive effort required to complete the questionnaires. There is also skepticism about the usefulness of ePROMs in interactions with health care professionals. Conclusions: This study provides useful information for future ePROM implementation strategies, aimed at effectively supporting the routine clinical management and care of patients with cancer. In addition, these findings may be relevant to other organizations willing to systematically collect PROMs or ePROMs in their clinical routines.
PROMs; barrier; cancer; clinical management; eHealth; electronic patient-reported outcomes; feasibility; implementation; mixed methods study; oncology; patient compliance; patient-reported outcomes; quality of life; questionnaire; semistructured interview; usability scale
Settore MEDS-05/A - Medicina interna
Settore MEDS-09/A - Oncologia medica
Settore PSIC-01/C - Psicometria
2025
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
PatientVoicesBrunellietal2025.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 438.4 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
438.4 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/1168263
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
  • OpenAlex ND
social impact