Currently submitted to: JMIR Perioperative Medicine
Date Submitted: Jul 25, 2019
Open Peer Review Period: Jul 29, 2019 - Sep 23, 2019
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint
Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note “no longer under consideration” will appear above).
Peer-review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a “Peer-Review Me” button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.
Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).
Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed “version of record” (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.
Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.
Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.
Benefits and pitfalls of electronic patient reported outcome measures: a systematic review
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.
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).
A systematic review was performed in Pubmed and Web of Science. PRISMA guidelines were followed during all stages. 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 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 as a platform web-based systems seem (81%) most applied. Aspects to consider as possible pitfalls are privacy protection, a possible initial large financial investment and exclusion of certain populations or ‘digital divide’.
In conclusion the ePROMs 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. We provide a path forward for researchers and clinicians interested in implementing ePROMs.
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.