ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2018
Patient-Reported Measures for Person-Centered Coordinated Care: A Comparative Domain Map and Web-Based Compendium for Supporting Policy Development and Implementation.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient-reported experiences and outcomes of virtual care during COVID-19: a systematic review.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2023Pooled it
- Quality improvement in emergency units in low resource settings: a qualitative assessment for understanding challenges and delivering solutions.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Article
- Core outcomes for the evaluation of new healthcare programmes - a modified Delphi study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Analysis of the Results of Monitoring the Quality of Services in Oncological Treatment, Conducted as Part of the Pilot Project of the National Cancer Network for Lung Cancer in 2019-2023, in Poland.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Centredness in health care: A systematic overview of reviews.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Review
- Assessing the experience of person-centred coordinated care of people with chronic conditions in the Netherlands: Validation of the Dutch P3CEQ.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- The use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
- User-centered design and agile development of a novel mobile health application and clinician dashboard to support the collection and reporting of patient-reported outcomes for breast cancer care.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2022Article
- User-centered design of a scalable, electronic health record-integrated remote symptom monitoring intervention for patients with asthma and providers in primary care.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- Empowerment among adult patients with type 2 diabetes: age differentials in relation to person-centred primary care, community resources, social support and other life-contextual circumstances.BMC public health · 2021Article
- A national research centre for the evaluation and implementation of person-centred care: Content from the first interventional studies.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- Spanish Validation of the "User Reported Measure of Care Coordination" Questionnaire for Older People with Complex, Chronic Conditions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Development and psychometric evaluation of a questionnaire to measure cancer patients' perception of care coordination.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Validation of the person-centred coordinated care experience questionnaire (P3CEQ).International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2019Article
- Article
- Characteristics of Future Models of Integrated Outpatient Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Can practitioners use patient reported measures to enhance person centred coordinated care in practice? A qualitative study.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2018Article
- Article
- Measuring Older Peoples' Experiences of Person-Centred Coordinated Care: Experience and Methodological Reflections from Applying a Patient Reported Experience Measure in SUSTAIN.International journal of integrated careArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported measure (PRM) questionnaires were originally used in research to measure outcomes of intervention studies. They have now evolved into a diverse family of tools measuring a range of constructs including quality of life and experiences of care. Current health and social care policy increasingly advocates their use for embedding the patient voice into service redesign through new models of care such as person-centered coordinated care (P3C). If chosen carefully and used efficiently, these tools can help improve care delivery through a variety of novel ways, including system-level feedback for health care management and commissioning. Support and guidance on how to use these tools would be critical to achieve these goals.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to develop evidence-based guidance and support for the use of P3C-PRMs in health and social care policy through identification of PRMs that can be used to enhance the development of P3C, mapping P3C-PRMs against an existing model of domains of P3C, and integration and organization of the information in a user-friendly Web-based database.
methodsA pragmatic approach was used for the systematic identification of candidate P3C-PRMs, which aimed at balancing comprehensiveness and feasibility. This utilized a number of resources, including existing compendiums, peer-reviewed and gray literature (using a flexible search strategy), and stakeholder engagement (which included guidance for relevant clinical areas). A subset of those candidate measures (meeting prespecified eligibility criteria) was then mapped against a theoretical model of P3C, facilitating classification of the construct being measured and the subsequent generation of shortlists for generic P3C measures, specific aspects of P3C (eg, communication or decision making), and condition-specific measures (eg, diabetes, cancer) in priority areas, as highlighted by stakeholders.
resultsIn total, 328 P3C-PRMs were identified, which were used to populate a freely available Web-based database. Of these, 63 P3C-PRMs met the eligibility criteria for shortlisting and were classified according to their measurement constructs and mapped against the theoretical P3C model. We identified tools with the best coverage of P3C, thereby providing evidence of their content validity as outcome measures for new models of care. Transitions and medications were 2 areas currently poorly covered by existing measures. All the information is currently available at a user-friendly web-based portal (p3c.org.uk), which includes all relevant information on each measure, such as the constructs targeted and links to relevant literature, in addition to shortlists according to relevant constructs.
conclusionsA detailed compendium of P3C-PRMs has been developed using a pragmatic systematic approach supported by stakeholder engagement. Our user-friendly suite of tools is designed to act as a portal to the world of PRMs for P3C, and have utility for a broad audience, including (but not limited to) health care commissioners, managers, and researchers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.