Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29881737›Full record

ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2017

Framework To Guide The Collection And Use Of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures In The Learning Healthcare System.

Patricia Franklin, Kate Chenok, Danielle Lavalee, Rebecca Love, Liz Paxton, Courtney Segal, Erin Holve

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Measurement invariance of the Pediatric Quality of life index in a child and adolescent mental health population.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Clinical Research Informatics: a Decade-in-Review.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. European society for trauma and emergency surgery member-identified research priorities in emergency surgery: a roadmap for future clinical research opportunities.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. How to make PROMs work: qualitative insights from leaders at United States hospitals with successful PROMs programs.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    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

7 authors.

Patricia FranklinUniversity of Massachusetts Medical School.
Kate ChenokChenok Associates, LLC.
Danielle LavaleeUniversity of Massachusetts Medical School.
Rebecca LoveKaiser Permanente.
Liz PaxtonKaiser Permanente.
Courtney SegalUniversity of Washington.
Erin HolveWashington, DC, Department of Health Care Finance.

Funding

AcademyHealth Electronic Data Methods (EDM) Forum Second PhaseU18HS022789 · AHRQ · ACADEMYHEALTH · PI EDMUNDS, MARGARET · 2013 to 2015
$5.1M
AHRQ HHS R03 HS024632AHRQ HHS U18 HS022789
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWeb-based collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical practice is expanding rapidly as electronic health records include web portals for patients to report standardized assessments of their symptoms. As the value of PROMs in patient care expands, a framework to guide the implementation planning, collection, and use of PROs to serve multiple goals and stakeholders is needed.

methodsWe identified diverse clinical, quality, and research settings where PROMs have been successfully integrated into care and routinely collected and analyzed drivers of successful implementation. Findings are based on key informant interviews with 46 individuals representing 38 organizations, of whom 40 participated in a webinars series, and 25 attended an in-person workshop designed to enable broad stakeholder input, review and refinement of the proposed PROMs implementation model. Stakeholders identified differing uses of PROMs to support: 1) individual patient care decisions, 2) quality improvement initiatives, 3) payer mandates, and 4) population health and research.

resultsThe implementation framework and steps that are consistently identified by stakeholders as best practices to guide PROM capture and use are described. Of note, participants indicate that web-based informatics tools are necessary but not sufficient for PROM use, suggesting that successful PROM implementation requires integration into clinic operations and careful planning for user's analytic needs. Each of the four identified uses may require implementation modifications at each step to assure optimal use.

conclusionsThe proposed framework will guide future PROM implementation efforts across learning health care systems to assure that complete PROMs are captured at the correct time, and with associated risk factors, to generate meaningful information to serve diverse stakeholders.

Identifiers

PMID29881737
PMCPMC5983040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.