Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26373852›Full record

Trial reportQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2016

Evaluation of point-of-care PRO assessment in clinic settings: integration, parallel-forms reliability, and patient acceptability of electronic QOL measures during clinic visits.

Pranav Sharma, Rodney L Dunn, John T Wei, James E Montie, Scott M Gilbert

Abstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Introduction to special section on patient-reported outcomes in nonstandard settings.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Pranav SharmaGenitourinary Oncology Program, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
Rodney L DunnDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
John T WeiDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
James E MontieDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Scott M GilbertGenitourinary Oncology Program, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA. scott.gilbert@moffitt.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAssessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life, has become an important component of healthcare that measures the impact of disease and medical treatment on patient health. Collecting PROs during point-of-care assessments and integrating them into the clinical setting, however, remains challenging. The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the reliability, usability, and acceptability of point-of-care electronic PRO assessments implemented in a prostate cancer clinic.

methodsFifty subjects completed paper-pencil and computerized formats of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), a validated, condition-specific QOL instrument, at separate times before treatment. Parallel-forms reliability was evaluated by comparing mean scores, variations in response distribution, and correlations between administration formats. Correlation coefficients of at least 0.70 were used for reliability testing. Differences between administration forms, indicating potential bias, were compared using the signed-rank test. A 6-item acceptability scale was also used to evaluate patient acceptability and satisfaction with the electronic format.

resultsMean scores and standard deviations were similar between the paper-pencil and electronic forms across all EPIC instrument domains, and no assessment bias was found. Each EPIC domain demonstrated a high reliability between administration formats (correlation coefficients: 0.70-0.98). The majority (>90 %) of respondents found that the computerized QOL format was user friendly and simple to use.

conclusionsPoint-of-care computerized QOL assessments were reliable and acceptable to patients in this study, supporting the feasibility of PRO integration at the point-of-care in clinical settings.

Indexed as

Health Status IndicatorsMedical Informatics ApplicationsPatient Outcome AssessmentPoint-of-Care SystemsQuality of LifeAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAmbulatory CareFeasibility StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CarePilot ProjectsClinical toolsElectronic questionnairePatient-reported outcomesQuality of life

Identifiers

PMID26373852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.