Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies

From: Facilitators and barriers to implementing electronic patient-reported outcome and experience measures in a health care setting: a systematic review

References

Intervention

Study design

Quality rating (%)

Country

Clinical setting

ePREMs only

DeRosis [4]

ePREM

Qualitative

20

Italy

General hospital

ePROMs only

Fredericksen [24]

ePROM

Qualitative

100

USA

Community health

Nielsen [26]

ePROM

Qualitative

100

Denmark

Gastroenterology

Rotenstein [38]

ePROM

Qualitative

100

USA

Oncology

Taliercio [43]

ePROM

Qualitative

100

USA

Dermatology

Unsworth [29]

ePROM

Qualitative

100

UK

Counselling/psychotherapy

Zhang [30]

ePROM

Qualitative

100

USA

Orthopaedic and oncology

Spaulding [28]

ePROM

Qualitative

93

USA

Psychiatry

Kwan [7]

ePROM

Qualitative

80

USA

General clinical practice

Papuga [9]

ePROM

Qualitative

60

USA

Orthopaedics

Schepers [8]

ePROM

Qualitative

60

Netherlands

Paediatric oncology

Trautmann [39]

ePROM

Qualitative

60

Germany

Oncology

Short [27]

ePROM

Observational quantitative

73

Canada + USA

Community outpatients

Li [37]

ePROM

Observational quantitative

60

Canada

Oncology

Bärlund [42]

ePROM

Observational quantitative

40

Finland

Oncology

Hanmer [40]

ePROM

Observational quantitative

40

USA

Paediatrics

Teela [35]

ePROM

Mixed methods

100

Netherlands

General hospital

Burton [32]

ePROM

Mixed methods

93

USA

General hospital

Duman-Lubberding [34]

ePROM

Mixed methods

93

Netherlands

Oncology

Dronkers [33]

ePROM

Mixed methods

86

Netherlands

Oncology

Amini [31]

ePROM

Mixed methods

80

Netherlands

General clinical practice

Howell [36]

ePROM

Mixed methods

60

Canada

Oncology

Bhatt [41]

ePROM

Mixed methods

20

USA

Orthopaedics

ePROM + ePREM

Krawczyk [25]

ePROM + ePREM

Qualitative

100

Canada

Palliative care