Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31840346›Full record

ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2020

The use of PROMs and shared decision-making in medical encounters with patients: An opportunity to deliver value-based health care to patients.

Olga C Damman, Anant Jani, Brigit A de Jong, Annemarie Becker, Margot J Metz, Martine C de Bruijne, Danielle R Timmermans, Martina C Cornel, Dirk T Ubbink, Marije van der Steen and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
25.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

87 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 174 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Value Cocreation in Health Care: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Development of a Core Patient-Reported Outcome (Measures) Set for Pediatric Physical Therapy.Pediatric physical therapy : the official publication of the Section on Pediatrics of the American Physical Therapy Association · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Making sense of PROM outcomes: a mixed method study to optimize graphical visualization formats for children.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

27 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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Olga C DammanAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4482-5042
Anant JaniValue Based Healthcare Programme, Department of Primary Care, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Brigit A de JongAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Neurology, MS Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Annemarie BeckerDepartment of Pulmonary Diseases, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Margot J MetzTranzo Scientific Center for Care and Wellbeing, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, GGz Breburg and Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Martine C de BruijneAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Danielle R TimmermansAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Martina C CornelAmsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Department of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5397-5544
Dirk T UbbinkDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marije van der SteenDepartment of Strategy and Policy, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Muir GrayValue Based Healthcare Programme, Department of Primary Care, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Carla van ElAmsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Department of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLAmsterdam Neuroscience · NLUniversity of Oxford · GBTilburg University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe recent emphasis on value-based health care (VBHC) is thought to provide new opportunities for shared decision-making (SDM) in the Netherlands, especially when using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine medical encounters. It is still largely unclear about how PROMs could be linked to SDM and what we expect from clinicians in this respect.

aimTo describe approaches and lessons learned in the fields of SDM and VBHC implementation that converge in using PROMs in medical encounters. APPROACH: Based on input from three Dutch forerunner case examples and available evidence about SDM and VBHC, we describe barriers and facilitators regarding the use of PROMs and SDM in the medical encounter. Barriers and facilitators were structured according to a conversational model that included monitoring and managing, team talk, option talk, choice talk, and decision talk. Key lessons learned and recommendations were synthesized.

resultsThe use of individual, N = 1 PROMs scores in the medical encounter has been largely achieved in the forerunner projects. Conversation on monitoring and managing is relatively well implemented, and option talk to some extent, unlike team talk, and decision talk. Aggregated PROMs information describing outcomes of treatment options seemed to be scarcely used. Experienced barriers largely corresponded to what is known from the literature, eg, perceived lack of time and lack of tools summarizing the options. Some concerns were identified about increasing health care consumption as a result of using PROMs and SDM in the medical encounter.

conclusionSuccessful implementation of SDM within VBHC initiatives may not be self-evident, even though individual, N = 1 PROMs scores are being used in the medical encounter. Education and staff resources on meso and macro levels may facilitate the more time-consuming SDM aspects. It seems fruitful to especially target team talk and choice talk in redesigning clinical pathways.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDecision Making, SharedDelivery of Health CareHumansNetherlandsPatient ParticipationPatient Reported Outcome Measurespatient-reported outcome measuresroutine outcome monitoringshared decision-makingvalue-based health care

Identifiers

PMID31840346
PMCPMC7155090
OpenAlexW2995985271

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.