Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30068012›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2018

Leveraging Patient-Reported Outcomes Using Data Visualization.

Lisa V Grossman, Steven K Feiner, Elliot G Mitchell, Ruth M Masterson Creber

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. A Systematic Review on Visualizations for Self-Generated Health Data for Daily Activities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Interventions to increase patient portal use in vulnerable populations: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors.

Lisa V GrossmanDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States.
Steven K FeinerDepartment of Computer Science, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States.
Elliot G MitchellDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States.
Ruth M Masterson CreberSchool of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States.

Funding

Should we return patient reported outcomes to human subjects participants?-exploring ethical obligationsR00NR016275 · NINR · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI MASTERSON CREBER, RUTH MARIE · 2018 to 2020
$896k
mHealth for Heart Failure Symptom MonitoringK99NR016275 · NINR · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI MASTERSON CREBER, RUTH MARIE · 2016 to 2017
$182k
NINR NIH HHS K99 NR016275NINR NIH HHS R00 NR016275
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth care organizations increasingly use patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to capture patients' health status. Although federal policy mandates PRO collection, the challenge remains to better engage patients in PRO surveys, and ensure patients comprehend the surveys and their results.

objectiveThis article identifies the design requirements for an interface that assists patients with PRO survey completion and interpretation, and then builds and evaluates the interface.

methodsWe employed a user-centered design process that consisted of three stages. First, we conducted qualitative interviews and surveys with 13 patients and 11 health care providers to understand their perceptions of the value and challenges associated with the use of PRO measures. Second, we used the results to identify design requirements for an interface that collects PROs, and designed the interface. Third, we conducted usability testing with 12 additional patients in a hospital setting.

resultsIn interviews, patients and providers reported that PRO surveys help patients to reflect on their symptoms, potentially identifying new opportunities for improved care. However, 6 out of 13 patients reported significant difficultly in understanding PRO survey questions, answer choices and results. Therefore, we identified aiding comprehension as a key design requirement, and incorporated visualizations into our interface design to aid comprehension. In usability testing, patients found the interface highly usable.

conclusionFuture interfaces designed to collect PROs may benefit from employing strategies such as visualization to aid comprehension and engage patients with surveys.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresUser-Computer InterfaceAdultAgedClinical Decision-MakingFemaleHeart FailureHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID30068012
PMCPMC6070388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.