Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30294712›Full record

ReviewJournal of patient-reported outcomes2018

How do patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support clinician-patient communication and patient care? A realist synthesis.

Joanne Greenhalgh, Kate Gooding, Elizabeth Gibbons, Sonia Dalkin, Judy Wright, Jose Valderas, Nick Black

3 registry-linked trialsAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 323 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
323citing papers in PubMed, 12 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.

NCT05040646 completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Study Protocol - The Development of a Novel Patient Reported Outcomes Measure Committed to the Watch-and-wait Program for Rectal Cancer: An International Delphi Study Protocol

TypeobservationalSponsorMaastricht University Medical CenterRan2021 to 2023Enrolled80ConditionsRectal CancerArmsDelphi exercise
NCT05931978 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

The Effect of a Consultation Dashboard on Patient Activation and Shared Decision Making

TypeinterventionalSponsorSt. Antonius HospitalRan2021 to 2022Enrolled150ConditionsChronic Kidney Disease Stage 3B, Chronic Kidney Disease stage4ArmsCKD dashboard
NCT06164457 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Implementing Individualized Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Routine Care of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: a Pilot Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of CalgaryRan2024 to 2027Enrolled200ConditionsCoronary Artery Disease, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Physician-Patient RelationsArmsePROM Survey
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

323 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Exploring the role of health-related quality of life measures in predictive modelling for oncology: a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Understanding factors impacting patient-reported outcome measures integration in routine clinical practice: an umbrella review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Performance of EQ5D-5L and AHPEQS for measuring outcomes and experiences of patients with peripherally inserted central catheters: a secondary analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Designing for delivery: a Delphi study of feasibility-informed implementation strategies for a fear of cancer recurrence clinical pathway.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article

263 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Joanne Greenhalgh1School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, LS2 9JT England.ORCID 0000-0003-2189-8879
Kate Gooding1School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, LS2 9JT England.
Elizabeth Gibbons3Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF UK.
Sonia Dalkin1School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, LS2 9JT England.
Judy Wright5Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL England.
Jose Valderas6Health Services and Policy Research, Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Heavitree Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU England.
Nick Black7Health Services Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH England.

Funding

Department of Health 12/136/31
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn this paper, we report the findings of a realist synthesis that aimed to understand how and in what circumstances patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support patient-clinician communication and subsequent care processes and outcomes in clinical care. We tested two overarching programme theories: (1) PROMs completion prompts a process of self-reflection and supports patients to raise issues with clinicians and (2) PROMs scores raise clinicians' awareness of patients' problems and prompts discussion and action. We examined how the structure of the PROM and care context shaped the ways in which PROMs support clinician-patient communication and subsequent care processes.

resultsPROMs completion prompts patients to reflect on their health and gives them permission to raise issues with clinicians. However, clinicians found standardised PROMs completion during patient assessments sometimes constrained rather than supported communication. In response, clinicians adapted their use of PROMs to render them compatible with the ongoing management of patient relationships. Individualised PROMs supported dialogue by enabling the patient to tell their story. In oncology, PROMs completion outside of the consultation enabled clinicians to identify problematic symptoms when the PROM acted as a substitute rather than addition to the clinical encounter and when the PROM focused on symptoms and side effects, rather than health related quality of life (HRQoL). Patients did not always feel it was appropriate to discuss emotional, functional or HRQoL issues with doctors and doctors did not perceive this was within their remit.

conclusionsThis paper makes two important contributions to the literature. First, our findings show that PROMs completion is not a neutral act of information retrieval but can change how patients think about their condition. Second, our findings reveal that the ways in which clinicians use PROMs is shaped by their relationships with patients and professional roles and boundaries. Future research should examine how PROMs completion and feedback shapes and is influenced by the process of building relationships with patients, rather than just their impact on information exchange and decision making.

Indexed as

Clinician-patient communicationFeedbackPatient reported outcome measuresRealist synthesis

Identifiers

PMID30294712
PMCPMC6153194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.