Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30684149›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2019

Advancing the use of patient-reported outcomes in practice: understanding challenges, opportunities, and the potential of health information technology.

Chun-Ju Hsiao, Christine Dymek, Bryan Kim, Brigid Russell

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Comparing patient-reported symptoms and structured clinician documentation in electronic health records.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Using bookmarking methods with orthopedic clinicians and patients with fractures produces score interpretation labels for patient-reported outcome measures.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. One report, multiple aims: orthopedic surgeons vary how they use patient-reported outcomes with patients.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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.

Chun-Ju HsiaoAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD, 20857, USA. janey.hsiao@ahrq.hhs.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5494-1971
Christine DymekAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD, 20857, USA.
Bryan KimAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD, 20857, USA.
Brigid RussellThe Joint Commission, 701 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC, 20004, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe effective use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can play a critical role in improving health care delivery and patient experience with care. However, PROs are not widely collected and used in clinical practice. This study aims to understand current opportunities and challenges with the use of PROs and the potential for health information technology (IT) to advance their use.

methodsThe Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality held two technical expert panel (TEP) meetings to discuss the current use of PROs, challenges, and opportunities in implementation, and how health IT can be leveraged to support effective PRO use in clinical practice. Results were synthesized to identify major themes and takeaways based on different stages of PRO data utilization.

resultsFindings from the TEP meetings indicated varying degrees of PRO usage in ambulatory care settings. Practices often lack a business case to collect PROs. Primary care physicians face more challenges than specialists in selecting appropriate PRO measures due to extensive variation in their patient populations. Providers also need training to use PRO data for shared decision making and population health management. Potential research areas to address PRO implementation challenges include measures harmonization, implementation process and workflow, electronic data collection and integration, and user-friendly data displays.

conclusionsOpportunities exist during different stages of PRO implementation to advance the use of PROs in clinical practice. Health IT can be utilized to address challenges in data collection, integration, and visualization to make PRO data accessible and understandable to patients and providers.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresData CollectionHumansMedical InformaticsQuality of LifeAmbulatory careHealth information technologyPatient-reported outcomesPrimary care

Identifiers

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.