UNASSIGNED: Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems hold promise for revolutionizing communication between cancer patients and healthcare providers across various care settings. This systematic review explores the multifaceted landscape of ePROs in cancer care, encompassing their advantages, disadvantages, potential risks, and opportunities for improvement.
UNASSIGNED: In our systematic review, we conducted a rigorous search in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, employing comprehensive medical subject heading terms for ePRO and cancer, with no date limitations up to 2024. Studies were critically appraised and thematically analyzed based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, including considerations of advantages, disadvantages, opportunities, and threats.
UNASSIGNED: Analyzing 85 articles revealed 69 themes categorized into four key areas. Advantages (n = 14) were dominated by themes like \"improved quality of life and care.\" Disadvantages (n = 26) included \"limited access and technical issues.\" Security concerns and lack of technical skills were prominent threats (n = 10). Opportunities (n = 19) highlighted advancements in symptom management and potential solutions for technical challenges.
UNASSIGNED: This review emphasizes the crucial role of continuous exploration, integration, and innovation in ePRO systems for optimizing patient outcomes in cancer care. Beyond traditional clinical settings, ePROs hold promise for applications in survivorship, palliative care, and remote monitoring. By addressing existing limitations and capitalizing on opportunities, ePROs can empower patients, enhance communication, and ultimately improve care delivery across the entire cancer care spectrum.

UNASSIGNED: Many studies using Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data have been conducted to monitor symptoms and health-related quality of life during follow-up after cancer treatment. However new ways of using (e)PROs have emerged. We aimed to explore the Danish landscape of the use of PRO in a research setting, where PRO is used actively in cancer patients undergoing treatment, and give an overview of how it is embraced by patients and clinicians.
UNASSIGNED: A literature search was performed in June 2023, using the keywords Denmark, cancer, and patient-reported outcomes. An expert on literature searches identified the search terms, and double screening was performed at both abstract and screening levels and full-text stage. The software tool Covidence was used.
UNASSIGNED: 467 articles were retrieved and 19 studies were included. They described the type of ePRO instrument used and the application of active ePRO i.e. a dialogue tool in the clinical encounter, release of alerts to clinicians, and enhancement of self-management. Finally, a development in the use of active ePROs over time is elucidated and we show how it is embraced by patients and clinicians.
UNASSIGNED: This mini-review gives an overview of how ePRO solutions are tested in oncological research in Denmark and embraced by patients and clinicians. ePRO solutions in a Danish setting seem well-suited for self-management. However, if more impact is warranted, clinicians need to engage in reviewing and using ePROs. Moreover, for successful implementation, the integration of ePROs in electronic health records must be supported by IT specialists and management.

Visual analogue scales (VASs) are used in a variety of patient-, observer- and clinician-reported outcome measures. While typically included in measures originally developed for pen-and-paper completion, a greater number of clinical trials currently use electronic approaches to their collection. This leads researchers to question whether the measurement properties of the scale have been conserved during the migration to an electronic format, particularly because electronic formats often use a different scale length than the 100 mm paper standard.
We performed a review of published studies investigating the measurement comparability of paper and electronic formats of the VAS.
Our literature search yielded 26 studies published between 1997 and 2018 that reported comparison of paper and electronic formats using the VAS. After excluding 2 publications, 23 of the remaining 24 studies included in this review reported electronic formats of the VAS (eVAS) and paper formats (pVAS) to be equivalent. A further study concluded that eVAS and pVAS were both acceptable but should not be interchanged. eVAS length varied from 21 to 200 mm, indicating that 100 mm length is not a requirement.
The literature supports the hypothesis that eVAS and pVAS provide comparable results regardless of the VAS length. When implementing a VAS on a screen-based electronic mode, we recommend following industry best practices for faithful migration to minimise the likelihood of non-comparability with pVAS.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures originally developed for paper administration are increasingly being administered electronically in clinical trials and other health research studies. Three published meta-analyses of measurement equivalence among paper and electronic modes aggregated findings across hundreds of PROs, but there has not been a similar meta-analysis that addresses a single PRO, partly because there are not enough published measurement equivalence studies using the same PRO. Because the SF-36(R) Health Survey (SF-36) is a widely used PRO, the aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of measurement equivalence studies of this survey.
A literature search of several medical databases used search terms for variations of \"SF-36\" or \"SF-12\" and \"equivalence\" in the title or abstract of English language publications. The eight scale scores and two summary measures of the SF-36 and SF-12 were transformed to norm-based scores (NBS) using developer guidelines. A threshold of within ± 2 NBS points was set as the margin of equivalence. Comprehensive meta-analysis software was used.
Twenty-five studies were included in the meta-analysis. Results indicated that mean differences across domains and summary scores ranged from 0.01 to 0.39 while estimates of agreement ranged from 0.76 to 0.91, all well within the equivalence threshold. Moderator analyses showed that time between administration, survey language, and type of electronic device did not influence equivalence.
The results of the meta-analysis support equivalence of paper-based and electronic versions of the SF-36 and SF-12 across a variety of disease populations, countries, and electronic modes.