Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32589163›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2020

Using Electronic Data Collection Platforms to Assess Complementary and Integrative Health Patient-Reported Outcomes: Feasibility Project.

Jolie N Haun, Amy C Alman, Christine Melillo, Maisha Standifer, Julie McMahon-Grenz, Marlena Shin, W A Lapcevic, Nitin Patel, A Rani Elwy

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes in immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: addressing gaps, capturing patient experience, and advancing the field.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Jolie N HaunResearch Service, James A. Haley VA Medical Center, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4075-3763
Amy C AlmanResearch Service, James A. Haley VA Medical Center, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3609-2595
Christine MelilloResearch Service, James A. Haley VA Medical Center, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4655-6605
Maisha StandiferResearch Service, James A. Haley VA Medical Center, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9617-9006
Julie McMahon-GrenzResearch Service, James A. Haley VA Medical Center, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3758-0091
Marlena ShinCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5555-6258
W A LapcevicResearch Service, James A. Haley VA Medical Center, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7458-1117
Nitin PatelPerformance Improvement and Reporting, VHA Office of Community Care, Department of Veteran Affairs, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6263-8075
A Rani ElwyCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Bedford Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Bedford, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7088-3118
James A. Haley Veterans' Hospital · USUniversity of South Florida · USBrown University · USCommunity Care · USVA Boston Healthcare System · US

Funding

UCLA Implementation Science and Substance Use Research and Education (ISSURE) ProgramR25DA035692 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI TIMOTHY W FONG, GAIL E. WYATT · 2013 to 2026
$3.9M
NIDA NIH HHS R25 DA035692
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Veteran Administration (VA) Office of Patient-Centered Care and Cultural Transformation is invested in improving veteran health through a whole-person approach while taking advantage of the electronic resources suite available through the VA. Currently, there is no standardized process to collect and integrate electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) of complementary and integrative health (CIH) into clinical care using a web-based survey platform. This quality improvement project enrolled veterans attending CIH appointments within a VA facility and used web-based technologies to collect ePROs.

objectiveThis study aimed to (1) determine a practical process for collecting ePROs using patient email services and a web-based survey platform and (2) conduct analyses of survey data using repeated measures to estimate the effects of CIH on patient outcomes.

methodsIn total, 100 veterans from one VA facility, comprising 11 cohorts, agreed to participate. The VA patient email services (Secure Messaging) were used to manually send links to a 16-item web-based survey stored on a secure web-based survey storage platform (Qualtrics). Each survey included questions about patient outcomes from CIH programs. Each cohort was sent survey links via Secure Messaging (SM) at 6 time points: weeks 1 through 4, week 8, and week 12. Process evaluation interviews were conducted with five primary care providers to assess barriers and facilitators to using the patient-reported outcome survey in usual care.

resultsThis quality improvement project demonstrated the usability of SM and Qualtrics for ePRO collection. However, SM for ePROs was labor intensive for providers. Descriptive statistics on health competence (2-item Perceived Health Competence Scale), physical and mental health (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global-10), and stress (4-item Perceived Stress Scale) indicated that scores did not significantly change over time. Survey response rates varied (18/100, 18.0%-42/100, 42.0%) across each of the 12 weekly survey periods. In total, 74 of 100 participants provided ≥1 survey, and 90% (66/74) were female. The majority, 62% (33/53) of participants, who reported the use of any CIH modality, reported the use of two or more unique modalities. Primary care providers highlighted specific challenges with SM and offered solutions regarding staff involvement in survey implementation.

conclusionsThis quality improvement project informs our understanding of the processes currently available for using SM and web-based data platforms to collect ePROs. The study results indicate that although it is possible to use SM and web-based survey platforms for ePROs, automating scheduled administration will be necessary to reduce provider burden. The lack of significant change in ePROs may be due to standard measures taking a biomedical approach to wellness. Future work should focus on identifying ideal ePRO processes that would include standardized, whole-person measures of wellness.

Indexed as

health information technologyhealth services researchintegrative medicinemobile phonepatient-reported outcomesveteran

Identifiers

PMID32589163
PMCPMC7381258
OpenAlexW3021779918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.