ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2020
Provider Perspectives on the Feasibility and Utility of Routine Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessment in Heart Failure: A Qualitative Analysis.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Impact of Routine Assessment of Patient-Reported Health Status in Heart Failure Clinic: The PRO-HF Trial.Circulation · 2024Trial
- Respondent fatigue in clinical practice: exploring the challenges of increasing PROMS and PREMS utilization in a tertiary hospital.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- A Survey on the Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Patient-Reported Outcomes Among 527 Nursing Staff in China.Nursing open · 2026Review
- Core outcome set for cardio-oncology: development of a set of outcomes for the cardiovascular assessment and monitoring of cancer patients and survivors.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2025Article
- Perceptions of Implementing Real-Time Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes and Digital Analytics in a Majority-Minority Cancer Center.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2024Article
- Development of an electronic health record-integrated patient-reported outcome-based shared decision-making dashboard in oncology.JAMIA open · 2024Article
- Implementation of an EHR-integrated web-based depression assessment in primary care: PORTAL-Depression.JAMIA open · 2024Article
- Physician-Reported Facilitators and Barriers for Side Effect Management of Heart Failure Medications.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Efficient measurement of multiple ventricular assist device patient-reported outcomes: Creation of a 20-item profile from the MCS A-QOL study.The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation · 2024Article
- Implementing a Patient-Reported Outcome Dashboard in Oncology Telemedicine Encounters: Clinician and Patient Adoption and Acceptability.JCO oncology practice · 2024Article
- Clinic-based perspectives on the integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a tertiary cancer center.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Knowledge is power, can it be leveraged to improve heart failure care?European journal of heart failure · 2023Article
- Uptake of pediatric patient-reported outcome and experience measures and challenges associated with their implementation in Alberta: a mixed-methods study.BMC pediatrics · 2023Article
- Adapting and usability testing of the Kansas city cardiomyopathy questionnaire (KCCQ) in a heart failure clinic in Tanzania: the Swahili KCCQ.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Article
- Evaluating the Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure Clinic: A Qualitative Assessment.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2023Article
- The patient-reported outcome measurement in heart failure clinic trial: Rationale and methods of the PRO-HF trial.American heart journal · 2023Article
- Moving towards patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical practice: implementation lessons from the BREAST-Q.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- The development and initial validation of the PROMIS®+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 profiles.ESC heart failure · 2022Article
- Heart Failure Strategically Focused Research Network: Summary of Results and Future Directions.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Article
- Identifying patients at increased risk for poor outcomes from heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the PROMPT-HF risk model.ESC heart failure · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) objectively measure health-related quality of life and provide prognostic information. Advances in technology now allow for rapid, patient-friendly PRO assessment and scoring, yet the adoption of PROs in clinic has been slow. We conducted a multicenter qualitative study of diverse providers to describe the barriers and facilitators of routine PRO use in heart failure clinics. Methods and Results Sixty heart failure providers from 5 institutions participated in 8 focus groups to explore provider perspectives on the use of heart failure-specific and generic PROs in clinical practice. A qualitative editing approach was used to analyze the data, whereby a coding dictionary was iteratively developed and applied using the qualitative software program Altas.ti. Three main themes, supporting and impeding PRO use, emerged: (1) data collection; (2) presentation and interpretation; and (3) utility and value. For each construct, we identified perspectives that highlighted both barriers and facilitators. Providers identified burden, survey fatigue, and language/health literacy barriers as potentially impeding data collection. Optimal workflow, PRO frequency and length, use of PRO translations, and assistance of a patient's proxy were suggested as facilitators. Focus group discussions provided insight on how to display PROs to support its interpretability and sharing. Furthermore, the need to educate providers on the utility and value PROs over and above current clinical approaches emerged. Conclusions Overcoming the barriers and supporting facilitators of PRO adoption could potentially lead to more successful adoption of PROs in heart failure clinics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.