Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31203238›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Does the Patient-Reported Apnea Questionnaire (PRAQ) increase patient-centredness in the daily practice of sleep centres? a mixed-methods study.

Inger L Abma, Maroeska M Rovers, Marijke IJff, Bernard Hol, Masha Nägele, Gert P Westert, Philip J van der Wees

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. European Respiratory Society guideline on non-CPAP therapies for obstructive sleep apnoea.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2021
    Guideline
  3. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Inger L AbmaIQ Healthcare, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3307-6736
Maroeska M RoversHealth Evidence and Operating Rooms, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marijke IJffApneuVereniging, Doorn, The Netherlands.
Bernard HolSleep Centre, Albert Schweitzer Ziekenhuis, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Masha NägeleIQ Healthcare, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Gert P WestertIQ Healthcare, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Philip J van der WeesIQ Healthcare, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLAlbert Schweitzer Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objective of this exploratory study was to see how the Patient-Reported Apnea Questionnaire (PRAQ) may impact the daily clinical practice of sleep centres, and why it may or may not work as expected. The hypotheses were tested that this patient-reported outcome measure makes patients more aware of which of their health complaints may be related to obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), and that it improves patient-centredness of care by shifting the focus of care away from (only) medical problems towards the individual burden of disease and quality of life.

designMixed methods. The quantitative study (surveys, patient records) was a before-and-after study.

settingThree sleep centres in The Netherlands (secondary care).

participants27 patients and 14 healthcare professionals were interviewed. 487 patients completed surveys pre-implementation, and 377 patients completed surveys post-implementation of the PRAQ. For the health records, 125 patients were included in the pre-implementation group, and 124 other patients in the post-implementation group.

interventionsThe PRAQ was used in clinical practice for six successive months. OUTCOME MEASURES: Scores on individual survey items, number of patients receiving non-medical treatment, adjustment of treatment at first follow-up, compliance with treatment.

resultsPatients were generally positive about the usefulness of the PRAQ before and during the consultation, as they felt more informed. Healthcare providers did not consider the PRAQ very useful, and they reported minor impact on their consultations. The surveys and health record study did not show an impact of the PRAQ on clinical practice.

conclusionsImplementing the PRAQ may be beneficial to patients, but this study does not show much impact with regard to patient-centredness of care. New Dutch guidelines for OSA care may lead to a greater emphasis on quality of life and value of care for patients, making its integration in clinical care potentially more useful.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overControlled Before-After StudiesFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPatient ComplianceSleep Apnea, Obstructiveobstructive sleep apneapatient-centerednesspatient-reported outcome measurequality of life

Identifiers

PMID31203238
PMCPMC6585829
OpenAlexW2952259802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.