Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32279196›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2020

A qualitative inquiry into patients' perspectives on individualized priorities for treatment outcomes in inflammatory bowel diseases.

Welmoed K van Deen, Ben Kiaei, S Alandra Weaver, Damara J Crate, Michelle H Kwon, Samir A Shah, Gil Y Melmed, Corey A Siegel

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, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Validation of the bowel urgency numeric rating scale in patients with Crohn's disease: results from a mixed methods study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    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

8 authors.

Welmoed K van DeenCedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Division of Health Services Research, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 116 N. Robertson Blvd, PACT #800, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Welmoed.vanDeen@cshs.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4836-9849
Ben KiaeiDivision of Gastroenterology, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
S Alandra WeaverCrohn's and Colitis Foundation, New York, NY, USA.
Damara J CrateSection of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Michelle H KwonGastroenterology Associates Inc., Providence, RI, USA.
Samir A ShahGastroenterology Associates Inc., Providence, RI, USA.
Gil Y MelmedDivision of Gastroenterology, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Corey A SiegelSection of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Lebanon, NH, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) experience a variety of symptoms and limitations due to their condition. While many outcome measures are available to assess IBD symptom level and disease activity, individual patients' preferences are usually not accounted for. Individualized outcome measures allow individual patients to select and weigh outcomes based on their relative importance, and have been developed in other medical disciplines. In this study, we explored IBD patients' perspectives on different strategies to prioritize IBD-specific health outcomes.

methodsExisting individualized measures were modified for relevance to IBD patients. We performed six focus groups, in which patients were asked to rate and weigh these measures in a series of exercises and to discuss the pros and cons of five different prioritization methods (Likert scale, ranking, selecting outcomes, distribute points, and using a rotating disk) using a semi-structured approach. A thematic analysis revealed key themes in the data.

resultsPatients' thoughts could be grouped into four key themes with 2-4 subthemes each: (1) prioritizing outcomes; (2) differences between methods; (3) outcomes to include; and (4) practical use. Overall, it was challenging for many patients to prioritize outcomes. Among the different prioritization methods, the rotating disk was perceived as the most intuitive. Patients anticipated that this visualization would also help them communicate with their physician.

conclusionIn a series of focus groups, a visual rotating disk was found to be an intuitive and holistic way to elicit the relative importance of different outcomes for individual IBD patients.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInflammatory Bowel DiseasesMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient PreferencePhysiciansQualitative ResearchQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeHealth outcomesIndividualized outcome measuresInflammatory bowel diseasesPatient preferences

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.