ArticleJournal of patient-centered research and reviews2020
Feasibility and Validity of Asking Patients to Define Individual Levels of Meaningful Change on Patient-Reported Outcomes.
Article in Journal of patient-centered research and reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06922188 (Development of Measures to Screen for Financial Hardship in Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Development of Measures to Screen for Financial Hardship in Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Common methods of determining meaningful change in clinical practice: implications for precision patient-reported outcomes.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- A comparison of oncologist versus mental health provider attitudes towards standardized and tailored patient-reported outcomes.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2021Article
- Patients-centered SurvivorShIp care plan after Cancer treatments based on Big Data and Artificial Intelligence technologies (PERSIST): a multicenter study protocol to evaluate efficacy of digital tools supporting cancer survivors.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- A Patient-Centered Evaluation of Meaningful Change on the 32-Item Motor Function Measure in Spinal Muscular Atrophy Using Qualitative and Quantitative Data.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are frequently used in clinical care to monitor treatment response. However, most guidelines on PRO use treat all patients the same. This study tested the feasibility and validity of a method for determining individually meaningful change in PRO measures.
methodsParticipants (n=398) completed 12 pain and distress questions to define individually meaningful change. This mixed-methods study used both quantitative and qualitative analyses, including descriptive statistics, inferential statistics, and content analysis.
resultsTwo-thirds (67%) of the sample reported at least one medical condition, including depression and back pain. Most participants (70%-90%) were able to answer the questions as intended. Participants varied widely in the amount of change they considered meaningful (coefficients of variation: 40%-99%). Higher symptom levels were associated with larger amounts of change considered meaningful and with greater likelihood of answering questions as intended. Participants reported a variety of reasons for why they considered an amount of change in pain or distress meaningful. The hypothetical nature of the questions and the need to reference previous questions was found to be confusing.
conclusionsAsking patients to define an individual level for meaningful change on PROs was feasible and valid. Having patients define their own goals on PROs for treatment of pain or distress could make treatment more patient-centered.
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.