Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34108024›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2021

Healthcare provider characteristics that influence the implementation of individual-level patient-centered outcome measure (PROM) and patient-reported experience measure (PREM) data across practice settings: a protocol for a mixed methods systematic review with a narrative synthesis.

Angela C Wolff, Andrea Dresselhuis, Samar Hejazi, Duncan Dixon, Deborah Gibson, A Fuchsia Howard, Sarah Liva, Barbara Astle, Sheryl Reimer-Kirkham, Vanessa K Noonan and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Understanding data visualization techniques in qualitative studies used to develop and validate patient-reported outcome measures: a targeted literature review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors.

Angela C WolffSchool of Nursing, Trinity Western University, 22500 University Drive, Langley, British Columbia, V2Y 1Y1, Canada. angela.wolff@twu.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-3857-0706
Andrea DresselhuisSchool of Nursing, Trinity Western University, 22500 University Drive, Langley, British Columbia, V2Y 1Y1, Canada.
Samar HejaziDepartment of Evaluation and Research Services, Fraser Health Authority, Suite 400, 13450 - 102nd Avenue, Surrey, BC, V3T 0H1, Canada.
Duncan DixonN.M. Alloway Library, Trinity Western University, 22500 University Drive, Langley, BC, V2Y 1Y1, Canada.
Deborah GibsonSchool of Nursing, Trinity Western University, 22500 University Drive, Langley, British Columbia, V2Y 1Y1, Canada.
A Fuchsia HowardFaculty of Applied Sciences, School of Nursing, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver Campus, T201 - 2211 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6T 2B5, Canada.
Sarah LivaSchool of Nursing, Trinity Western University, 22500 University Drive, Langley, British Columbia, V2Y 1Y1, Canada.
Barbara AstleSchool of Nursing, Trinity Western University, 22500 University Drive, Langley, British Columbia, V2Y 1Y1, Canada.
Sheryl Reimer-KirkhamSchool of Nursing, Trinity Western University, 22500 University Drive, Langley, British Columbia, V2Y 1Y1, Canada.
Vanessa K NoonanResearch and Best Practice Implementation, Praxis Spinal Cord Institute, 818 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada.
Lisa EdwardsFaculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Richmond Road, Bradford, West Yorkshire, BD7 1DP, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSubstantial literature has highlighted the importance of patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs, respectively) to collect clinically relevant information to better understand and address what matters to patients. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize the evidence about how healthcare providers implement individual-level PROMs and PREMs data into daily practice.

methodsThis mixed methods systematic review protocol describes the design of our synthesis of the peer-reviewed research evidence (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods), systematic reviews, organizational implementation projects, expert opinion, and grey literature. Keyword synonyms for "PROMs," PREMs," and "implementation" will be used to search eight databases (i.e., MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase, SPORTDiscus, Evidence-based Medicine Reviews, and ProQuest (Dissertation and Theses)) with limiters of English from 2009 onwards. Study selection criteria include implementation at the point-of-care by healthcare providers in any practice setting. Eligible studies will be critically appraised using validated tools (e.g., Joanna Briggs Institute). Guided by the review questions, data extraction and synthesis will occur simultaneously to identify biographical information and methodological characteristics as well as classify study findings related to implementation processes and strategies. As part of the narrative synthesis approach, two frameworks will be utilized: (a) Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify influential factors of PROMs and PREMs implementation and (b) Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) to illicit strategies. Data management will be undertaken using NVivo 12 DISCUSSION: Data from PROMs and PREMs are critical to adopt a person-centered approach to healthcare. Findings from this review will guide subsequent phases of a larger project that includes interviews and a consensus-building forum with end users to create guidelines for implementing PROMs and PREMs at the point of care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020182904 .

Indexed as

Health PersonnelPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresData CollectionDelivery of Health CareHumansPatient-Centered CareSystematic Reviews as TopicClinical decision-makingCliniciansHealthcare providersImplementationKnowledge translation (KT)Patient-centered care (PCC)Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs)Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)Patient-reported outcomes (PROs)Routine outcome monitoring (ROM)

Identifiers

PMID34108024
PMCPMC8188663

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.