Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Apr 3;3(1):e15588.
doi: 10.2196/15588.

Benefits and Disadvantages of Electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measures: Systematic Review

Jill Meirte #  1   2 , Nick Hellemans  2 , Mieke Anthonissen #  1   2 , Lenie Denteneer #  2 , Koen Maertens #  1 , Peter Moortgat #  1 , Ulrike Van Daele #  1   2
Affiliations
Review

Benefits and Disadvantages of Electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measures: Systematic Review

Jill Meirte et al. JMIR Perioper Med. .

Abstract

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: 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: 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 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: 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: PROSPERO CRD42018094795; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=94795.

Keywords: advantages; electronic patient-reported outcome measures; paper-based patient-reported outcome measures; pitfalls; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of the study selection process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Preferred mode of form administration.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comprehensive overview of the benefits of, disadvantages of, and suggestions for electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. CDRH Strategic Priorities 2016-2017. [2018-09-12]. Value and Use of Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) in Assessing Effects of Medical Devices https://www.fda.gov/media/109626/download.
    1. Rolfson O, Bohm E, Franklin P, Lyman S, Denissen G, Dawson J, Dunn J, Eresian Chenok K, Dunbar M, Overgaard S, Garellick G, Lübbeke Anne, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries Part II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis. Acta Orthop. 2016 Jul 26;87 Suppl 1(sup1):9–23. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/27228230 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kyte DG, Calvert M, van der Wees PJ, ten Hove R, Tolan S, Hill JC. An introduction to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in physiotherapy. Physiotherapy. 2015 Jun;101(2):119–25. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2014.11.003. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0031-9406(14)00113-8 - DOI - PubMed
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. 2009. [2018-09-12]. Guidance for Industry Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims https://www.fda.gov/media/77832/download.
    1. Allen L. Ganser, Stephen A. Raymond, Jay D. Pearson . ePro Electronic Solutions for Patient-Reported Data. London: Gower; 2010. Data Quality and Power in Clinical Trials: A Comparison of ePRO and Paper in a Randomized Trial.