ArticleMedical care research and review : MCRR2020
A Rigorous Approach to Large-Scale Elicitation and Analysis of Patient Narratives.
Article in Medical care research and review : MCRR, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Risks and Benefits of Web-Based Patient Narratives: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- The Patient Experience Divide: How Income Relates to Care Quality in the Primary Care Setting.Medical care · 2026Article
- Exploring sociodemographic disparities in diagnostic problems and mistakes in the quest for diagnostic equity: insights from a national survey of patient experiences.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Leveraging Patients' Creative Ideas for Innovation in Health Care.The Milbank quarterly · 2024Article
- Associations of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Clinician and Group Survey Scores with Interventions and Site, Provider, and Patient Factors: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.Journal of patient experience · 2024Article
- How the CAHPS Clinician and Group Patient Experience Survey Data Have Been Used in Research: A Systematic Review.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2024Review
- Evaluation of a protocol for eliciting narrative accounts of pediatric inpatient experiences of care.Health services research · 2023Article
- What Words Convey: The Potential for Patient Narratives to Inform Quality Improvement.The Milbank quarterly · 2019Article
- Learning from patients: The impact of using patients' narratives on patient experience scores.Health care management reviewArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patient narratives have emerged as promising vehicles for making health care more responsive by helping clinicians to better understand their patients' expectations, perceptions, or concerns and encouraging consumers to engage with information about quality. A growing number of websites incorporate patients' comments. But existing comments have fragmentary content, fail to represent less vocal patients, and can be manipulated to "manage" providers' reputations. In this article, we offer the first empirical test of the proposition that patient narratives can be elicited rigorously and reliably using a five-question protocol that can be incorporated into large-scale patient experience surveys. We tested whether elicited narratives about outpatient care are complete (report all facets of patient experience), balanced (convey an accurate mix of positive and negative events), meaningful (have a coherent storyline), and representative (draw fulsome narratives from all relevant subsets of patients). The tested protocol is strong on balance and representativeness, more mixed on completeness and meaningfulness.
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.