ArticleBMJ open2020
Feedback of patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals for comparing health service performance: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Implementing electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Chronic Kidney Disease: a qualitative systematic review of barriers, enablers, and mechanisms.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluation of a new design solution for the visualisation of a risk-adjusted hospital performance comparison: results of an end user-centred mixed methods study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- The Experience of Spanish Cancer Patients and Professionals With Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Practice.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- Redefining Success in Hernia Surgery: The Case for Patient-Reported Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- User-centered design approach to visualize PROMs for molecular tumor boards.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- Meaningful differences in patient-reported outcome measurement scores in liver disease.Hepatology communications · 2025Article
- The Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cirrhosis.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- "Less words, more pictures": creating and sharing data visualizations from a remote health monitoring system with clinicians to improve cancer pain management.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Person-centred care, a core concept of family medicine.The European journal of general practice · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Population-Based Usage and Benefit of Digitally Collected Patient-Reported Outcomes and Experiences in Patients With Chronic Diseases: The PROMchronic Study Protocol.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Navigating the Digital Landscape: Embracing Innovation, Addressing Challenges, and Prioritizing Patient-Centric Care.Cureus · 2024Review
- Remote Symptom Monitoring With Ecological Momentary Computerized Adaptive Testing: Pilot Cohort Study of a Platform for Frequent, Low-Burden, and Personalized Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- The Development, Deployment, and Evaluation of the CLEFT-Q Computerized Adaptive Test: A Multimethods Approach Contributing to Personalized, Person-Centered Health Assessments in Plastic Surgery.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Article
- Reporting unit context data to stakeholders in long-term care: a practical approach.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Towards better reporting of the proportion of days covered method in cardiovascular medication adherence: A scoping review and new tool TEN-SPIDERS.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
- Article
- BREAST-Q REACT: Clinical Reference Values for the BREAST-Q in Post-mastectomy Breast Reconstruction Patients.Annals of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- Positive Outcomes: Validity, reliability and responsiveness of a novel person-centred outcome measure for people with HIV.HIV medicine · 2022Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePatient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide self-reported patient assessments of their quality of life, daily functioning, and symptom severity after experiencing an illness and having contact with the health system. Feeding back summarised PROs data, aggregated at the health-service level, to healthcare professionals may inform clinical practice and quality improvement efforts. However, little is known about the best methods for providing these summarised data in a way that is meaningful for this audience. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to summarise the emerging approaches to PROs data for 'service-level' feedback to healthcare professionals.
settingHealthcare professionals receiving PROs data feedback at the health-service level. DATA SOURCES: Databases selected for the search were Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and targeted web searching. The main search terms included: 'patient-reported outcome measures', 'patient-reported outcomes', 'patient-centred care', 'value-based care', 'quality improvement' and 'feedback'. Studies included were those that were published in English between January 2009 and June 2019. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Data were extracted on the feedback methods of PROs to patients or healthcare providers. A standardised template was used to extract information from included documents and academic publications. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Levels of Evidence for Effectiveness.
resultsOverall, 3480 articles were identified after de-duplication. Of these, 19 academic publications and 22 documents from the grey literature were included in the final review. Guiding principles for data display methods and graphical formats were identified. Seven major factors that may influence PRO data interpretation and use by healthcare professionals were also identified.
conclusionWhile a single best format or approach to feedback PROs data to healthcare professionals was not identified, numerous guiding principles emerged to inform the field.
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.