Search Articles

View query in Help articles search

Search Results (1 to 7 of 7 Results)

Download search results: CSV END BibTex RIS


Impact of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes on Unplanned Consultations and Hospitalizations in Patients With Cancer Undergoing Systemic Therapy: Results of a Patient-Reported Outcome Study Compared With Matched Retrospective Data

Impact of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes on Unplanned Consultations and Hospitalizations in Patients With Cancer Undergoing Systemic Therapy: Results of a Patient-Reported Outcome Study Compared With Matched Retrospective Data

The data recorded by patients (patient reported outcomes; PROs) can be recorded electronically in real time (electronic patient reported outcomes; e PROs) using a smartphone app and made available to the doctor. The use of e PROs thus enables ongoing recording of patients’ daily well-being and state of health. The evaluation of e PROs is also used in clinical studies of patients with cancer [2] and enables structured and standardized data collection in patients’ everyday lives.

Andreas Trojan, Christian Kühne, Michael Kiessling, Johannes Schumacher, Stefan Dröse, Christian Singer, Christian Jackisch, Christoph Thomssen, Gerd A Kullak-Ublick

JMIR Form Res 2024;8:e55917

Evaluating the Impact of an mHealth Platform for Managing Acute Postoperative Dental Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial

Evaluating the Impact of an mHealth Platform for Managing Acute Postoperative Dental Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and PRO measures play a crucial role in this process. PROs refer to any report of the patient’s health status that comes directly from the patient, while patient-reported outcome measures are validated questionnaires that patients complete to self-assess their health status [13]. Patient self-reporting is a critical part of comprehensive pain assessment [14], given pain’s subjective and multidimensional nature.

Bunmi Tokede, Alfa Yansane, Ana Ibarra-Noriega, Joanna Mullins, Kristen Simmons, Nicholas Skourtes, Urvi Mehta, Sayali Tungare, David Holmes, Joel White, Muhammad Walji, Elsbeth Kalenderian

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2023;11:e49677

Examination of Text Message Plans and Baseline Usage of Families Enrolled in a Text Message Influenza Vaccine Reminder Trial: Survey Study

Examination of Text Message Plans and Baseline Usage of Families Enrolled in a Text Message Influenza Vaccine Reminder Trial: Survey Study

Of the 50 practices in this study, 46 were from the Pediatric Research in Office Settings (PROS) Network, the pediatric primary-care practice-based research network of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the remaining 4 were affiliated with the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and Columbia University, respectively. Practices were located throughout the United States (Northeast [28%], South [36%], Midwest [16%], and West [20%]).

Chelsea S Wynn, Alexander G Fiks, Russell Localio, Justine Shults, Ekaterina Nekrasova, Laura P Shone, Alessandra Torres, Miranda Griffith, Rebecca Unger, Leigh Ann Ware, Mary Kate Kelly, Melissa S Stockwell

JMIR Form Res 2023;7:e39576

Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning Methods to Characterize Unstructured Patient-Reported Outcomes: Validation Study

Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning Methods to Characterize Unstructured Patient-Reported Outcomes: Validation Study

However, toxic treatment often causes long-term sequelae (eg, physical and psychological morbidities and premature mortality [4-8]), which contribute to poor patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and impaired quality of life [8,9]. Poor PROs, such as fatigue, pain, psychological distress, and neurocognitive problems, are prevalent in survivors of cancer aged Conventionally, PROs are collected from childhood survivors of cancer during follow-up care using standard surveys with prespecified content of PROs.

Zhaohua Lu, Jin-ah Sim, Jade X Wang, Christopher B Forrest, Kevin R Krull, Deokumar Srivastava, Melissa M Hudson, Leslie L Robison, Justin N Baker, I-Chan Huang

J Med Internet Res 2021;23(11):e26777

Pixel or Paper? Validation of a Mobile Technology for Collecting Patient-Reported Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Pixel or Paper? Validation of a Mobile Technology for Collecting Patient-Reported Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), defined by the US Food and Drug Administration as “any report of the status of a patient's health condition that comes directly from the patient,” are becoming more and more common in the medical field, with an increasing improvement of dedicated software solutions for electronic capturing of data [1]. Furthermore, general advantages of using online formats compared to paper ones were already highlighted in the early 90s [2] and confirmed by further studies [3,4].

Oscar Massimiliano Carina Epis, Cinzia Casu, Laura Belloli, Emanuela Schito, Davide Filippini, Marina Muscarà, Maria Giovanna Gentile, Paula Carina Perez Cagnone, Chiara Venerelli, Massimo Sonnati, Irene Schiavetti, Eleonora Bruschi

JMIR Res Protoc 2016;5(4):e219

Patients’ and Health Care Providers’ Opinions on a Supportive Health App During Breast Cancer Treatment: A Qualitative Evaluation

Patients’ and Health Care Providers’ Opinions on a Supportive Health App During Breast Cancer Treatment: A Qualitative Evaluation

In the field of breast cancer research, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are becoming increasingly important to better understand and quantify symptoms, psychosocial well-being, and side effects of treatment from a patient’s perspective [4,5]. Mobile health apps may prove to be useful in the collection of PROs, as many patients already use their mobile phones to collect and share personal information. However, it is still unknown to what extent health apps can be used to collect reliable PROs.

Danny A A. Young-Afat, Carla H van Gils, David J Bruinvels, Carmen C van der Pol, Arjen J Witkamp, Sieta Sijtsema, Yvette Jonasse, Rhodé M Bijlsma, Margreet G Ausems, Annelies M Bos, Desirée H van den Bongard, Helena M Verkooijen

JMIR Cancer 2016;2(1):e8