File
Meirte J1,2, Hellemans N3, Anthonissen M4, Denteneer L3, Maertens K4, Moortgat P4, Van Daele U4,5
1University of Antwerp, Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Wilrijk, Belgium, 2Oscare, Burn and Scar After-Care and Research Centre, Antwerpen, Belgium, 3University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium, 4Oscare, Burn and Scar After-Care and Research Centre, Antwerp, Belgium, 5University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Background: Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are important in clinical practice and research. The growth of (e)-health technologies provide unprecedented opportunities to systematically collect information via PROMs.
Purpose: The aim of this study was to give an objective and comprehensive overview of the benefits, barriers and pitfalls of digital collection of qualitative data with electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures (ePROMs).
Methods: A systematic review was performed in Pubmed and Web of Science. PRISMA guidelines were followed during all stages of this review. The search strategy yielded a total of 2333 records from which 32 met the predefined in- and exclusion criteria. Relevant ePROM related information from each study was extracted.
Results: Results were clustered in benefits and pitfalls. Reported benefits of ePROMs were a higher patient preference and acceptability, lower costs, equal or faster completion time, better data quality and response rates and facilitated symptom management and patient-clinician communication. Within the included studies tablets seem the most used ePROM modality (44%) and also web-based systems seem (81%) most applied. Aspects to consider as possible pitfalls are privacy protection, a possible one-time large investment and exclusion of certain populations or digital divide.
Conclusion(s): In conclusion the electronic administration of PROMs offers many advantages over paper administration. Overall, they are preferred more, data quality improves, completion time is equal or faster, costs are lower and clinical decision making and symptom management is facilitated. Disadvantages regarding ePROMS have been mapped and suggestions are stated to counter-act these pitfalls.
Implications: We provide a path forward for researchers and clinicians interested in implementing ePROMs.
Keywords: Patient reported 0utcome Measures, digital questionnaires, benefits
Funding acknowledgements: none
Purpose: The aim of this study was to give an objective and comprehensive overview of the benefits, barriers and pitfalls of digital collection of qualitative data with electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures (ePROMs).
Methods: A systematic review was performed in Pubmed and Web of Science. PRISMA guidelines were followed during all stages of this review. The search strategy yielded a total of 2333 records from which 32 met the predefined in- and exclusion criteria. Relevant ePROM related information from each study was extracted.
Results: Results were clustered in benefits and pitfalls. Reported benefits of ePROMs were a higher patient preference and acceptability, lower costs, equal or faster completion time, better data quality and response rates and facilitated symptom management and patient-clinician communication. Within the included studies tablets seem the most used ePROM modality (44%) and also web-based systems seem (81%) most applied. Aspects to consider as possible pitfalls are privacy protection, a possible one-time large investment and exclusion of certain populations or digital divide.
Conclusion(s): In conclusion the electronic administration of PROMs offers many advantages over paper administration. Overall, they are preferred more, data quality improves, completion time is equal or faster, costs are lower and clinical decision making and symptom management is facilitated. Disadvantages regarding ePROMS have been mapped and suggestions are stated to counter-act these pitfalls.
Implications: We provide a path forward for researchers and clinicians interested in implementing ePROMs.
Keywords: Patient reported 0utcome Measures, digital questionnaires, benefits
Funding acknowledgements: none
Topic: Outcome measurement; Disability & rehabilitation; Mental health
Ethics approval required: No
Institution: UA
Ethics committee: ethisch comité UZA/UA
Reason not required: review of scientific paper
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
