Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
Multilevel factors associated with nonresponse to patient-reported outcome measures in routine radiation oncology care.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Liu Jason B, Chen Yu-Jen, Edelen Maria O, Pusic Andrea L, Martin Neil E, Zeng Chengbo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Nonresponse to routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) threatens the representativeness of aggregated data. We characterized patient-, provider-, and clinic-level factors associated with PROMIS Global-10 nonresponse in routine radiation oncology care.
METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, all adults seen at five Mass General Brigham radiation oncology clinics over one year were included. The primary outcome was patient-level nonresponse, defined as never completing the portal-administered Global-10 versus completing it at least once. Using iterative mixed-effects logistic regression, we modeled patient-, provider-, and clinic-level factors.
RESULTS: Among 12,214 patients, 71 providers, and five clinics, patient- and appointment-level response rates were 35.4% and 31.7%, with patient-level response ranging nearly fivefold across clinics (12.8% to 66.2%). In Model 1, male sex, lower education, not working, and recent surgery had higher odds of nonresponse, and longer time since diagnosis lower odds. After provider- and clinic-level factors were added, patient sex, education, and employment became nonsignificant, whereas recent surgery (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.97) and longer time since diagnosis (aOR 0.46 for > 12 months) persisted. A provider's historical collection rate was protective but attenuated at the clinic level. There, a later program launch (aOR 0.29) and higher historical collection rate (aOR 0.79) correlated with lower nonresponse, whereas academic versus community setting did not.
CONCLUSIONS: Nonresponse to routinely collected PROMs is a multilevel phenomenon driven substantially by clinic-level implementation factors, not patient characteristics alone. Because response rate is only a proxy for representativeness, PROMs programs and PRO-based performance measures should prioritize representative collection over volume.
METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, all adults seen at five Mass General Brigham radiation oncology clinics over one year were included. The primary outcome was patient-level nonresponse, defined as never completing the portal-administered Global-10 versus completing it at least once. Using iterative mixed-effects logistic regression, we modeled patient-, provider-, and clinic-level factors.
RESULTS: Among 12,214 patients, 71 providers, and five clinics, patient- and appointment-level response rates were 35.4% and 31.7%, with patient-level response ranging nearly fivefold across clinics (12.8% to 66.2%). In Model 1, male sex, lower education, not working, and recent surgery had higher odds of nonresponse, and longer time since diagnosis lower odds. After provider- and clinic-level factors were added, patient sex, education, and employment became nonsignificant, whereas recent surgery (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.97) and longer time since diagnosis (aOR 0.46 for > 12 months) persisted. A provider's historical collection rate was protective but attenuated at the clinic level. There, a later program launch (aOR 0.29) and higher historical collection rate (aOR 0.79) correlated with lower nonresponse, whereas academic versus community setting did not.
CONCLUSIONS: Nonresponse to routinely collected PROMs is a multilevel phenomenon driven substantially by clinic-level implementation factors, not patient characteristics alone. Because response rate is only a proxy for representativeness, PROMs programs and PRO-based performance measures should prioritize representative collection over volume.