Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30714080›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2019

Eliciting patient-important outcomes through group brainstorming: when is saturation reached?

Marianna LaNoue, Alexzandra Gentsch, Amy Cunningham, Geoffrey Mills, Amanda M B Doty, Judd E Hollander, Brendan G Carr, Larry Loebell, Gail Weingarten, Kristin L Rising

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02792777 (Concept Mapping as a Scalable Method for Identifying Patient-Important Outcomes), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT02792777 completednot on this map

Concept Mapping as a Scalable Method for Identifying Patient-Important Outcomes

TypeobservationalSponsorThomas Jefferson UniversityRan2016 to 2018Enrolled148ConditionsConcept Mapping Versus InterviewsArmsInterviews, Concept Mapping (CM)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Social Circumstances Affecting Asthma: A Group Concept Mapping Study of School Stakeholders.The Journal of school nursing : the official publication of the National Association of School Nurses · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

10 authors.

Marianna LaNoueCollege of Population Health and Department of Family and Community Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, 1015 Walnut St., suite 401, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. Marianna.lanoue@jefferson.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7823-9693
Alexzandra GentschDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA.
Amy CunninghamDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA.
Geoffrey MillsDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA.
Amanda M B DotyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA.
Judd E HollanderDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA.
Brendan G CarrDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA.
Larry LoebellVoicing Outcomes Important for Care (VOICe) Study, Patient and Key Stakeholder Advisory Board (PAKSAB) member, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Gail WeingartenVoicing Outcomes Important for Care (VOICe) Study, Patient and Key Stakeholder Advisory Board (PAKSAB) member, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Kristin L RisingDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeGroup brainstorming is a technique for the elicitation of patient input that has many potential uses, however no data demonstrate concept saturation. In this study we explore concept saturation in group brainstorming performed in a single session as compared to two or three sessions.

methodsFifty-two predominately African American adults patients with moderately to poorly controlled Diabetes Mellitus participated in three separate group brainstorming sessions as part of a PCORI-funded group concept mapping study examining comparing methods for the elicitation of patient important outcomes (PIOs). Brainstorming was unstructured, in response to a prompt designed to elicit PIOs in diabetes care. We combined similar brainstormed responses from all three sessions into a 'master list' of unique PIOs, and then compared the proportion obtained at each individual session, as well as those obtained in combinations of 2 sessions, to the master list.

resultsTwenty-four participants generated 85 responses in session A, 14 participants generated 63 in session B, and 14 participants generated 47 in session C. Compared to the master list, the individual sessions contributed 87%, 76%, and 63% of PIOs. Session B added 3 unique PIOs not present in session A, and session C added 2 PIOs not present in either A or B. No single session achieved >90% saturation of the master list, but all 3 combinations of 2 sessions achieved > 90%.

conclusionsSingle sessions elicited only 63-87% of the patient-important outcomes obtained across all three sessions, however all combinations of two sessions elicited over 90% of the master list, suggesting that 2 sessions are sufficient for concept saturation.

trial registrationNCT02792777 . Registered 2 June 2016.

Identifiers

PMID30714080
PMCPMC6360192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.