Related Experiment Videos
Electronic patient-reported outcome platforms used in hematological cancers: a systematic review
Jessica Nikolovski1,2, Marika Franklin3,4,5, Eliza A Hawkes6
1Sydney Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. jessica.nikolovski@sydney.edu.au.
Purpose:
The use of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) has demonstrated benefits in oncology; however, their use in hematological malignancies remains limited. We aimed to identify bespoke ePROM platforms used in hematology settings and describe their features, acceptability, usability, feasibility, implementation and uptake rates, and outcome data.
Methods:
A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane) and Google Play were searched for studies and mobile applications (apps) reporting on ePROM platforms in hematological cancer populations. Data were extracted about the following: characteristics, features, uses, and patient or clinician-reported data on platform acceptability, usability, feasibility, implementation, and evaluation outcomes.
Results:
Fourteen total platforms were identified from 18 studies (reporting 13 unique ePROM platforms) and one platform known to authors. No additional platforms were identified through Google Play search. The included platforms were used in hematological research, clinical care, and registry settings and captured symptoms and quality of life using validated and customized PROMs. Delivery modes included websites and apps that featured automated prompts, clinician alerts, graphical feedback, and electronic medical record integration. Overall, usability was reported to be high; most platforms were acceptable to patients and clinicians. Feasibility and uptake varied, but several studies reported high patient engagement (> 80% completion rates). Positive outcomes included reduced symptom burden, improved treatment adherence, and enhanced patient-clinician communication.
Conclusions:
The diversity of identified platforms reflects the wide range of hematological diseases, treatments, and care settings in which ePROMs may be applied, highlighting their flexibility and adaptability. Existing ePROM platforms used in hematological cancers vary substantially in features, purposes, and settings. Future work should focus on tailoring content, supporting implementation, and evaluating the impact of ePROM platforms on patient, clinician, and service outcomes.