Table 4.
Mean and 95% CI for ePROM strengths and weaknesses: single-item and overall scores (N = 475)
| Mean | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|
| ePROM strengths | ||
| ePROMs allow graphic display of symptom and quality of life trends over time | 3.9 | 3.8–4.0 |
| ePROMs facilitate scoring and score interpretation | 3.9 | 3.8–4.0 |
| ePROMs facilitate data sharing between different HCPs in the team | 3.8 | 3.7–3.9 |
| ePROMs allow remote patient follow-up | 3.7 | 3.6–3.8 |
| ePROMs facilitate the integration of PROM data with clinical data from other sources for research purposes | 3.7 | 3.6–3.8 |
| Overall score of ePROM strength items | 3.8 | 3.7–3.9 |
| ePROM weaknesses | ||
| ePROMs are difficult to implement due to the lack of familiarity with electronic devices of some categories of patients | 3.4 | 3.3–3.5 |
| ePROMs will overload the EMR during the visit | 3.1 | 3.0–3.2 |
| ePROMs are difficult to implement due to data protection issues | 2.8 | 2.7–2.9 |
| Overall score of ePROM weakness items | 3.1 | 3.0–3.2 |
ePROM Electronic patient-reported outcome measure, HCP Healthcare professional, EMR Electronic medical record