Benefits and Disadvantages of Electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measures: Systematic Review.
advantages
electronic patient-reported outcome measures
paper-based patient-reported outcome measures
pitfalls
systematic review
Journal
JMIR perioperative medicine
ISSN: 2561-9128
Titre abrégé: JMIR Perioper Med
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101771348
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Apr 2020
03 Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
25
07
2019
accepted:
05
02
2020
revised:
06
12
2019
entrez:
4
1
2021
pubmed:
5
1
2021
medline:
5
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important in clinical practice and research. The growth of electronic health technologies provides unprecedented opportunities to systematically collect information via PROMs. The aim of this study was to provide an objective and comprehensive overview of the benefits, barriers, and disadvantages of the digital collection of qualitative electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs). We performed a systematic review of articles retrieved from PubMED and Web of Science. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed during all stages. The search strategy yielded a total of 2333 records, from which 32 met the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The relevant ePROM-related information was extracted from each study. Results were clustered as benefits and disadvantages. Reported benefits of ePROMs were greater patient preference and acceptability, lower costs, similar or faster completion time, higher data quality and response rates, and facilitated symptom management and patient-clinician communication. Tablets were the most used ePROM modality (14/32, 44%), and, as a platform, Web-based systems were used the most (26/32, 81%). Potential disadvantages of ePROMs include privacy protection, a possible large initial financial investment, and exclusion of certain populations or the "digital divide." In conclusion, ePROMs offer many advantages over paper-based collection of patient-reported outcomes. Overall, ePROMs are preferred over paper-based methods, improve data quality, result in similar or faster completion time, decrease costs, and facilitate clinical decision making and symptom management. Disadvantages regarding ePROMs have been outlined, and suggestions are provided to overcome the barriers. We provide a path forward for researchers and clinicians interested in implementing ePROMs. PROSPERO CRD42018094795; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=94795.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important in clinical practice and research. The growth of electronic health technologies provides unprecedented opportunities to systematically collect information via PROMs.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to provide an objective and comprehensive overview of the benefits, barriers, and disadvantages of the digital collection of qualitative electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs).
METHODS
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of articles retrieved from PubMED and Web of Science. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed during all stages. The search strategy yielded a total of 2333 records, from which 32 met the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The relevant ePROM-related information was extracted from each study.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Results were clustered as benefits and disadvantages. Reported benefits of ePROMs were greater patient preference and acceptability, lower costs, similar or faster completion time, higher data quality and response rates, and facilitated symptom management and patient-clinician communication. Tablets were the most used ePROM modality (14/32, 44%), and, as a platform, Web-based systems were used the most (26/32, 81%). Potential disadvantages of ePROMs include privacy protection, a possible large initial financial investment, and exclusion of certain populations or the "digital divide."
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, ePROMs offer many advantages over paper-based collection of patient-reported outcomes. Overall, ePROMs are preferred over paper-based methods, improve data quality, result in similar or faster completion time, decrease costs, and facilitate clinical decision making and symptom management. Disadvantages regarding ePROMs have been outlined, and suggestions are provided to overcome the barriers. We provide a path forward for researchers and clinicians interested in implementing ePROMs.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
PROSPERO CRD42018094795; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=94795.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33393920
pii: v3i1e15588
doi: 10.2196/15588
pmc: PMC7709853
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
e15588Informations de copyright
©Jill Meirte, Nick Hellemans, Mieke Anthonissen, Lenie Denteneer, Koen Maertens, Peter Moortgat, Ulrike Van Daele. Originally published in JMIR Perioperative Medicine (http://periop.jmir.org), 03.04.2020.
Références
Lancet. 2001 Apr 14;357(9263):1191-4
pubmed: 11323066
J Hand Surg Am. 2012 Dec;37(12):2589-94
pubmed: 23174074
J Med Internet Res. 2007 Sep 30;9(3):e25
pubmed: 17942387
Value Health. 2013 Jun;16(4):480-9
pubmed: 23796281
Support Care Cancer. 2013 Jan;21(1):165-72
pubmed: 22684988
JMIR Res Protoc. 2014 Jul 16;3(3):e38
pubmed: 25048799
Value Health. 2008 Mar-Apr;11(2):322-33
pubmed: 18380645
J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2014 Jul-Aug;25(4):364-71
pubmed: 24434198
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2016 Nov/Dec;45(7):E451-E457
pubmed: 28005113
Br J Dermatol. 2017 Nov;177(5):1306-1315
pubmed: 28112800
Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Nov;127(2):273-7
pubmed: 22871467
Bone Joint Res. 2013 Nov 07;2(11):238-44
pubmed: 24203164
Eur J Epidemiol. 2010 May;25(5):287-96
pubmed: 20191377
JMIR Cancer. 2017 Aug 07;3(2):e11
pubmed: 28784595
Hemoglobin. 2015;39(3):162-8
pubmed: 25831427
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006 Jan;45(1):66-71
pubmed: 16263782
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013 Nov;52(11):2062-70
pubmed: 23955646
Qual Life Res. 2001;10(1):15-22
pubmed: 11508472
Ann Rheum Dis. 2008 Dec;67(12):1739-41
pubmed: 18647853
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2019 Jul;53(4):426-430
pubmed: 30157687
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015 Jul;135(7):935-41
pubmed: 25957980
Orthopedics. 2016 Jan-Feb;39(1):e31-5
pubmed: 26709557
Value Health. 2009 Jun;12(4):419-29
pubmed: 19900250
Adv Ther. 2017 Feb;34(2):452-465
pubmed: 28000165
Qual Life Res. 2015 Aug;24(8):1949-61
pubmed: 25702266
Physiotherapy. 2015 Jun;101(2):119-25
pubmed: 25620440
BMJ. 2001 Aug 11;323(7308):334-6
pubmed: 11498496
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 27;(7):MR000042
pubmed: 26212714
Respir Med. 2009 Jun;103(6):932-4
pubmed: 19028085
Qual Life Res. 2018 Jul;27(7):1757-1767
pubmed: 29663258
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015 Oct 07;13:167
pubmed: 26446159
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015 Jan 22;13:2
pubmed: 25608560
Patient. 2015 Aug;8(4):301-9
pubmed: 25300613
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2016 Aug;23:97-105
pubmed: 27456381
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2009 May-Jun;27(3):459-68
pubmed: 19604439
Value Health. 2017 Apr;20(4):610-617
pubmed: 28408003
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016 Mar 03;10:243-50
pubmed: 27042018
Disabil Rehabil. 2016 Dec;38(24):2406-12
pubmed: 26800715
Epilepsy Behav. 2016 Feb;55:57-61
pubmed: 26745631
Qual Life Res. 2007 May;16(4):675-85
pubmed: 17286197
Oncologist. 2013;18(1):64-72
pubmed: 23287880
J Adolesc Health. 2005 Jan;36(1):70.e1-6
pubmed: 15661601
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015 Dec 23;15:110
pubmed: 26699708
Acta Orthop. 2016 Jul;87 Suppl 1:9-23
pubmed: 27228230