Trial reportThe American journal of managed care2016
The effect of EHR-integrated patient-reported outcomes on satisfaction with chronic pain care.
Trial report in The American journal of managed care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Electronic Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Primary Health Care: Mixed Methods Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- American Society for Enhanced Recovery and Perioperative Quality Initiative-4 Joint Consensus Statement on Persistent Postoperative Opioid Use: Definition, Incidence, Risk Factors, and Health Care System Initiatives.Anesthesia and analgesia · 2019Pooled it
- Effect of nurse informatics on medication errors, patients' satisfaction, and quality patient care - A systematic review and metanalysis.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Review
- Adoption of Patient-Reported Outcomes by Health Systems and Physician Practices in the USA.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- Assessing the use of a clinical decision support tool for pain management in primary care.JAMIA open · 2022Article
- CHOIRBM: An R package for exploratory data analysis and interactive visualization of pain patient body map data.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Study protocol for a type III hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial to evaluate scaling interoperable clinical decision support for patient-centered chronic pain management in primary care.Implementation science : IS · 2022Article
- Evaluating a Prototype Clinical Decision Support Tool for Chronic Pain Treatment in Primary Care.Applied clinical informatics · 2022Article
- Examining perspectives on the adoption and use of computer-based patient-reported outcomes among clinicians and health professionals: a Q methodology study.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Review
- Enhancing the use of EHR systems for pragmatic embedded research: lessons from the NIH Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- Exploring association between certified EHRs adoption and patient experience in U.S. psychiatric hospitals.PloS one · 2020Article
- Development and validation of the Collaborative Health Outcomes Information Registry body map.Pain reportsArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesGiven its complexity, chronic noncancer pain presents an opportunity to use health information technology (IT) to improve care experiences. The objective of this study was to assess whether integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) data in an electronic health record (EHR) affects provider and patient satisfaction with chronic noncancer pain care. STUDY
designWe conducted a pragmatic cluster randomized trial involving 4 family medicine clinics.
methodsWe enrolled primary care providers (PCPs) and their patients with chronic noncancer pain. In the first 7 months (education phase), PCPs in intervention practices received education on how to use PROs for pain care. In the second 7 months (PRO phase), patients in intervention practices reported pain-related outcomes on arrival at their visits. PROs were immediately reported to PCPs through the EHR. Control group PCPs provided usual care. We compared intervention and control practices in terms of provider and patient satisfaction with care.
resultsDuring the education phase, patients' mean ratings of their visits did not differ between control and intervention (9.33 vs 9.08; P = .20). During the PRO phase, patients' mean ratings did not differ between control and intervention (9.28 vs 9.01; P = .20). Similarly, there were no differences between the intervention and control groups in terms of provider satisfaction.
conclusionsDelivering EHR-integrated PROs did not consistently improve patient or provider satisfaction. Positively, we found no evidence that the PRO tools negatively affected satisfaction. Future studies and technological innovations are needed to translate point-of-care health IT tools into improvements in patient and provider experiences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27982672PMC5460672What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.