Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28339771›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2017

Implementing patient-reported outcome surveys as part of routine care: lessons from an academic radiation oncology department.

Lisa S Rotenstein, Ankit Agarwal, Kelly O'Neil, Andrea Kelly, Maureen Keaty, Colleen Whitehouse, Barbara Kalinowski, Peter F Orio, Neil Wagle, Neil E Martin

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Clinic-based perspectives on the integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a tertiary cancer center.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Patient adherence to patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) completion in clinical care: current understanding and future recommendations.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lisa S RotensteinHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Ankit AgarwalBoston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Kelly O'NeilDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Andrea KellyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Maureen KeatyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Colleen WhitehouseDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Barbara KalinowskiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Peter F OrioHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Neil WagleHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Neil E MartinHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are reports of health conditions that come directly from patients. Use of PROs has been associated with improved patient outcomes, enhanced quality of life, and reduced end-of-life spending. Yet there are still outstanding questions regarding the process of implementing PRO collection in routine practice. In this article, we describe the experience of selecting and implementing PROs in a multisite, multidisease academic medical center-based radiation oncology practice and demonstrate that such large-scale rollout is feasible. We establish that PROs can be implemented with minimal to no workflow delays, are generally seen as valuable by clinicians, and can enhance patient-doctor communication. We additionally detail the challenges involved in selecting clinically relevant PRO questionnaires and the centrality of physician buy-in, easy data access, and clear workflows to successful implementation.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresRadiation OncologyAcademic Medical CentersHumansOrganizational Case StudiesPatient Outcome AssessmentSoftwareUser-Computer Interfacedigital toolselectronic health recordspatient engagementpatient outcome assessment

Identifiers

PMID28339771
PMCPMC7651917
OpenAlexW2591607876

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.