Electronic Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Primary Health Care: Mixed Methods Systematic Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Managing chronic diseases remains a critical challenge in primary health care (PHC) across the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) are emerging as valuable tools for enhancing patient engagement, facilitating clinical decision-making, and improving health outcomes. However, their implementation in PHC remains limited, with significant variability in effectiveness and adoption. OBJECTIVE This systematic review aimed to assess the implementation and effectiveness of ePROMs in chronic disease management within PHC settings and to identify key barriers and facilitators influencing their integration. METHODS A mixed methods systematic review was conducted following the Cochrane Methods and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We included studies that implemented ePROMs among adults for chronic disease management in PHC. The extracted data included patient health outcomes, provider workflow implications, implementation factors, and cost considerations. The reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance framework was used. RESULTS Our search yielded 12,525 references, from which 22 (0.18%) studies were included after screening and exclusions. These studies, primarily conducted in the United States (n=9, 41%) and Canada (n=8, 36%), covered various chronic diseases and used diverse ePROM tools, predominantly mobile apps (n=9, 41%). While some studies (n=10, 45%) reported improvements in patient health outcomes and self-management, others (n=12, 55%) indicated no significant change. Key barriers included digital literacy gaps, integration challenges within clinical workflows, and increased provider workload. Facilitators included strong patient-provider relationships, personalized interventions, and technical support for users. While some studies (n=10, 45%) demonstrated improved patient engagement and self-management, long-term cost-effectiveness and sustainability remain uncertain. CONCLUSIONS Success in implementing ePROMs in PHC appears to hinge on addressing digital literacy, ensuring personalization and meaningful patient-provider interactions, carefully integrating technology into clinical workflows, and conducting thorough research on their long-term impacts and cost-effectiveness. Future efforts should focus on these areas to fully realize the benefits of digital health technologies for patients, providers, and health care systems. CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO CRD42022333513; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42022333513 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.2196/48155
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.067 | 0.232 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".