Multilevel Factors Associated with Nonresponse to Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Routine Radiation Oncology Care
Liu, J. B.; Chen, Y.-J.; Edelen, M. O.; Pusic, A. L.; Martin, N. E.; Zeng, C.
Show abstract
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 10.9%, 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.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Impact of Primary Care Team Configuration on Access and Quality of Care 94%
- Association of patients’ past misdiagnosis experiences with trust in their current physician: the TRUMP 2 -Net study 92%
- An Evaluation of the Vulnerable Physician Workforce in the United States During the Coronavirus Disease-19 Pandemic 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Surgery & COVID-19: A rapid scoping review of the impact of COVID-19 on surgical services during public health emergencies 93%
- Cohort Profile: A national prospective cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic outcomes in the U.S. - The CHASING COVID Cohort Study 92%
- Pre-Post Analysis of the Impact of British Columbia Nurse Practitioner Primary Care Clinics on Patient Health and Care Experience 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Missing data in the medical record for oncology patients: prevalence and association with outcomes 95%
- COVID-19 outcomes, risk factors and associations by race: a comprehensive analysis using electronic health records data in Michigan Medicine 92%
- Low adherence to existing model reporting guidelines by commonly used clinical prediction models 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Understanding disruptions in cancer care to reduce increased cancer burden 95%
- The Impact of COVID-19 on Cancer Screening and Treatment in Older Adults: The Multiethnic Cohort Study 94%
- Examining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cervical cancer screening practices among clinicians practicing in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A mixed methods study 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.