Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29509054›Full record

Observational studyInformatics for health & social care2019

Electronic patient agenda forms: comparing agreement between the reason for specialty consultation reported by referring providers and patients.

Shahzad Ahmed, Christopher V Almario, William D Chey, Lori A Robbins, Bianca Chang, Joseph Ahn, Jeffrey Ko, Phillip Gu, Alvin Siu, Brennan M R Spiegel

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Informatics for health & social care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of Decision Support Systems for Healthcare Referral Strategies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Shahzad Ahmeda Department of Medicine , Cedars-Sinai Medical Center , Los Angeles , CA , USA.
Christopher V Almarioa Department of Medicine , Cedars-Sinai Medical Center , Los Angeles , CA , USA.
William D Cheyf Division of Gastroenterology , University of Michigan , Ann Arbor , MI , USA.
Lori A Robbinsa Department of Medicine , Cedars-Sinai Medical Center , Los Angeles , CA , USA.
Bianca Changa Department of Medicine , Cedars-Sinai Medical Center , Los Angeles , CA , USA.
Joseph Ahna Department of Medicine , Cedars-Sinai Medical Center , Los Angeles , CA , USA.
Jeffrey Koa Department of Medicine , Cedars-Sinai Medical Center , Los Angeles , CA , USA.
Phillip Gua Department of Medicine , Cedars-Sinai Medical Center , Los Angeles , CA , USA.
Alvin Siua Department of Medicine , Cedars-Sinai Medical Center , Los Angeles , CA , USA.
Brennan M R Spiegela Department of Medicine , Cedars-Sinai Medical Center , Los Angeles , CA , USA.

Funding

Development and Initial Validation of PROMIS GI Distress ScaleU01AR057936 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI KHANNA, DINESH, SPIEGEL, BRENNAN · 2009 to 2013
$2.2M
NIAMS NIH HHS U01 AR057936
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveLittle is known about the agreement between referring providers' reason for specialty evaluation and patients' understanding of why they are referred for consultation. Here, we compared the reason for consult (RFC) documented by referring providers during usual care vs. the perceived RFC independently reported by patients through an e-portal just prior to the specialist visit.

methodsWe performed an observational study among patients referred for gastrointestinal (GI) evaluation. Patients referred to the specialty clinic submitted their self-reported RFC using an online patient agenda form prior to their visit. Therefore, each participant had a referring provider- and patient-documented RFC. Blinded physicians reviewed the RFCs in random order using a priori coding criteria. We then compared whether the provider and patient RFC pairs were concordant (i.e., ≥1 clinical topic[s] in the RFCs matched).

resultsSixty patients completed the e-portal prior to their visit, leading to 60 provider-patient RFC pairs. The RFC pairs were concordant in only 52% of cases.

conclusionsThere is poor agreement between referring providers' reason for GI referral and patients' understanding of why they are visiting the clinic. Future research examining whether electronic patient agenda forms impact diagnostic and management precision, patient satisfaction, and healthcare utilization is warranted.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelFemaleGastroenterologyHealth Information ExchangeHumansMalePatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient PortalsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SatisfactionReferral and ConsultationElectronic patient agenda formpatient-provider communicationpatient-provider portalspecialty care referral

Identifiers

PMID29509054
PMCPMC6126991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.