ArticleJournal of athletic training2019
The Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Secondary School Athletic Trainers' Perceptions, Practices, and Barriers.
Article in Journal of athletic training, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Concussion Assessment and Management Practices Among Irish and Canadian Athletic Therapists: An International Perspective.Journal of athletic training · 2023Article
- Comparing the Primary Concerns of Injured Collegiate Athletes With the Content of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.Journal of athletic training · 2023Article
- Validation of a Script to Facilitate Social Determinant of Health Conversations with Adolescent Patients.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Patient Outcomes After Treatment by Athletic Therapy Students.Journal of athletic training · 2022Article
- Concussion Knowledge and Clinical Experience Among Athletic Trainers: Implications for Concussion Health Care Practices.Journal of athletic training · 2020Article
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Sports Medicine: A Concise Resource for Clinicians and Researchers.Journal of athletic training · 2020Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextIncorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into daily routine is essential for patient-centered clinical practice. Secondary school athletic trainers (ATs) may encounter unique barriers that limit their willingness to use PROs.
objectiveTo explore how secondary school ATs who were using PROs perceived their application, benefits, and problems compared with those who did not.
designCross-sectional study.
settingWeb-based survey. PATIENTS OR OTHER
participantsA total of 2984 secondary school ATs received an e-mail invitation, and 322 completed the survey (response rate = 10.8%). Respondents were 43 ± 10 years old, with most indicating at least 11 years as a Board of Certification-certified AT (n = 276, 85.7%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The ATs were invited to complete a Web-based survey regarding the uses and benefits of and problems with PROs. Those using PROs in clinical practice were asked their criteria for selecting the measures, whereas those not using PROs were asked their reasons for not using them. Dependent variables were endorsements of uses and benefits of and problems with PROs.
resultsThe most commonly cited uses of PROs were determining treatment effectiveness (193/264, 73%) and demonstrating effectiveness to administration (174/264, 66%). Improving communication with the patient (267/296, 90%) and helping to direct the plan of care (256/297, 86%) were the most frequently endorsed benefits of PROs. Time to score and analyze (152/284, 53%) and time for patients to complete (134/284, 47%) PROs were the problems encountered most often. For ATs not using PROs (223/262, 85%), the most frequent reason was the lack of a support structure (102/219, 46%). For ATs using PROs (39/262, 15%), quick completion times (32/39, 82%) was the most common criterion used to select individual measures.
conclusionsA majority of secondary school ATs recognized the benefits of PROs and yet did not use them in clinical practice due to setting-specific barriers.
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.