ArticleBMJ open2021
Protocol for a scoping review exploring the use of patient-reported outcomes in adult social care.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cultural barriers influencing virtual community of practice: a scopic review.BMC psychology · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- 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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are measures of a person's own views of their health, functioning and quality of life. They are typically assessed using validated, self-completed questionnaires known as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROMs are used in healthcare settings to support care planning, clinical decision-making, patient-practitioner communication and quality improvement. PROMs have a potential role in the delivery of social care where people often have multiple and complex long-term health conditions. However, the use of PROMs in this context is currently unclear. The objective of this scoping review is to explore the evidence relating to the use of PROMs in adult social care. METHODS AND ANALYSES: The electronic databases Medline (Ovid), PsychInfo (Ovid), ASSIA (ProQuest), Social Care Online (SCIE), Web of Science and EMBASE (Ovid) were searched on 29 September 2020 to identify eligible studies and other publically available documents published since 2010. A grey literature search and hand searching of citations and reference lists of the included studies will also be undertaken. No restrictions on study design or language of publication will be applied. Screening and data extraction will be completed independently by two reviewers. Quality appraisal of the included documents will use the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and AACODS (Authority, Accuracy, Coverage, Objectivity, Date, Significance) checklists. A customised data charting table will be used for data extraction, with analysis of qualitative data using the framework method. The review findings will be presented as tables and in a narrative summary. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical review is not required as scoping reviews are a form of secondary data analysis that synthesise data from publically available sources. Review findings will be shared with service users and other relevant stakeholders and disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. This protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework (www.osf.io).
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.