SynthesisBMC family practice2018
Identification, description and appraisal of generic PROMs for primary care: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC family practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Usability and added value of the Value@WORK-Q23: insights from user testing of a standard set of key work-related outcomes for patients with cardiovascular diseases in real-life consultations.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- The patient-safety implications of AI-based communication with migrants in general practice: a scoping review.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Psychometric properties, and cultural appropriateness, of patient reported outcome measures for use in primary healthcare: a scoping review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- A 25-Year Retrospective of Health IT Infrastructure Building: The Example of the Catalonia Region.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- The indirect effect of nonadherence on health-related quality of life in older adults with neurological disorders: implications for clinical endpoints and interventions.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Clinical Integration of Digital Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Primary Health Care for Chronic Disease Management: Protocol for a Systematic Review.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Liver and Gastrointestinal Cancer Randomized Controlled Trials.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- Examining utility and feasibility of implementing patient-reported outcome measures in occupational therapy primary care practice.The British journal of occupational therapy · 2022Article
- Enablement and empowerment among patients participating in a supported osteoarthritis self-management programme - a prospective observational study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Observational
- Patient Judgement of Change with Elective Surgery Correlates with Patient Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Development and Content Validity of the Bilateral Vestibulopathy Questionnaire.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- Protocol for implementation of the 'AusPROM' recommendations for elective surgery patients: a mixed-methods cohort study.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Outcomes after kidney transplantation, let's focus on the patients' perspectives.Clinical kidney journal · 2021Review
- Patient and family views of team functioning in primary healthcare teams with nurse practitioners: a survey of patient-reported experience and outcomes.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- Protocol for a scoping review exploring the use of patient-reported outcomes in adult social care.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Multidimensional Geriatric Assessment with MAGIC Questionnaire and Quality of Life in Elderly Primary Care Patients.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Selecting Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to Contribute to Primary Care Performance Measurement: a Mixed Methods Approach.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Review
- General practitioners' views on use of patient reported outcome measures in primary care: a cross-sectional survey and qualitative study.BMC family practice · 2020Article
- Can the Routine Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Improve the Delivery of Person-Centered Diabetes Care? A Review of Recent Developments and a Case Study.Current diabetes reports · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients attend primary care with many types of problems and to achieve a range of possible outcomes. There is currently a lack of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) designed to capture these diverse outcomes. The objective of this systematic review was to identify, describe and appraise generic PROMs suitable for measuring outcomes from primary care.
methodsWe carried out a systematic Medline search, supplemented by other online and hand-searches. All potentially relevant PROMs were itemised in a long-list. Each PROM in the long-list which met inclusion criteria was included in a short-list. Short-listed PROMs were then described in terms of their measurement properties and construct, based on a previously published description of primary care outcome as three constructs: health status, health empowerment and health perceptions. PROMs were appraised in terms of extent of psychometric testing (extensive, moderate, low) and level of responsiveness (high, medium, low, unknown).
resultsMore than 5000 abstracts were identified and screened to identify PROMs potentially suitable for measuring outcomes from primary care. 321 PROMs were long-listed, and twenty PROMs were catalogued in detail. There were five PROMs which measured change directly, without need for a baseline. Although these had less strong psychometric properties, they may be more responsive to change than PROMs which capture status at a point in time. No instruments provided coverage of all three constructs. Of the health status questionnaires, the most extensively tested was the SF-36. Of the health empowerment instruments, the PEI, PAM and heiQ provided the best combination of responsiveness and psychometric testing. The health perceptions instruments were all less responsive to change, and may measure a form of health perception which is difficult to shift in primary care.
conclusionsThis systematic review is the first of its kind to identify papers describing the development and validation of generic PROMs suitable for measuring outcomes from primary care. It identified that: 1) to date, there is no instrument which comprehensively covers the outcomes commonly sought in primary care, and 2) there are different benefits both to PROMs which measure status at a point in time, and PROMs which measure change directly.
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.