Advancing patient-centered cancer care: a systematic review of electronic patient-reported outcome measures.
Hosna Salmani, Somayeh Nasiri, Mahdi Alemrajabi and 1 others
PMID 39386354WHAT IT FOUND
Electronic cancer questionnaires were mostly generic quality-of-life and symptom measures, including a head-and-neck module that asks about swallowing.
This review of 85 studies mapped tools, not evidence that using them improves care.
Key findings
01Eighty-five studies were included from 672 identified, mapping electronic patient-reported outcome measures used in cancer care.
02The most frequently referenced measures were the EORTC QLQ-C30, cited in 16 studies, and the PRO-CTCAE, cited in 14 studies.
03A head-and-neck cancer quality-of-life module assessed swallowing ability.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
It included only English papers from three databases, so tools used elsewhere may be missing. It excluded many study types, including feasibility studies, patient perspective papers, validity and reliability studies, and economic studies. The review reports tool use, not patient outcome effects. The authors note that healthcare technology changes quickly, so the list may become outdated. The authors note that tool selection across settings can introduce bias.
Declared interests
The authors declared no financial support for the research, authorship, or publication.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that electronic patient-reported outcome measures improve cancer care. This review described measurement tools rather than comparing patient outcomes.