ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2017
Case Studies from the Clinic: Initiating and Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- From obligation to opportunity: future of patient-reported outcome measures at the Veterans Health Administration.Translational behavioral medicine · 2019Article
- Patient reported outcomes can improve performance status assessment: a pilot study.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2019Article
- Truthfulness in patient-reported outcomes: factors affecting patients' responses and impact on data quality.Patient related outcome measures · 2019Review
- Pragmatic clinical trials embedded in healthcare systems: generalizable lessons from the NIH Collaboratory.BMC medical research methodology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSelf-reporting by patients though the use of electronic patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures has been shown to use increase patient satisfaction with care, and improve patient-provider communication, symptom management, and health quality. Additionally, PROs are increasingly used in research to expand understanding regarding the relative risks, benefits, and burdens of interventions. While experience embedding patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into registries and clinical workflow is growing, there is little in the literature to guide those interested in incorporating PROs into routine clinical care CASE DESCRIPTIONS: The NIH Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory PRO Core interviewed investigators from seven programs to get their first-hand experiences on the incorporation of PROs for both care and research, and the investigators have contributed to this manuscript as authors.
findingsWe use these case studies to present practical approaches to initiating and implementing PROS, including instrument selection, tips for integrating PRO collection systems into clinical workflow, considerations for user experience and data collection, and the methods to assess and monitor quality.
conclusionBecause the decision to initiate and implement PRO collection impacts many different stakeholders, the solution requires collaboration among the involved parties, careful planning, and integration into clinical workflow.
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.