ArticleBMJ open2021
Mixed-methods approach to develop an agreed concept on patient relevance: study protocol for the 'PRO patients study'.
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 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cluster randomised trial of a complex interprofessional intervention (interprof ACT) to reduce hospital admission of nursing home residents.Age and ageing · 2023Trial
- Patients' perspective on supposedly patient-relevant process and outcome parameters: a cross-sectional survey within the 'PRO patients study'.BMC health services research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWith respect to patient-centred care and shared decision-making, measuring care effects based on outcomes relevant to patients is becoming increasingly important. Recently, a scoping review of the international literature revealed a wide range of supposedly patient-relevant outcomes and found that there is neither a sound definition of patient relevance nor a consistent set of outcomes relevant to patients. To close this gap, this study aims to develop an agreed concept on patient relevance including a set of outcomes relevant to patients irrespective of diseases, which grades outcomes according to their importance. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This prospective mixed-methods study will integrate the perspectives of patients across diseases, healthcare professionals and researchers. The consensus process will consist of four phases. Based on the results of the recent scoping review, a patient survey will be conducted first, followed by a multiprofessional group discussion. Finally, a two-round online Delphi approach based on data from the previous phases will be applied to agree on a concept. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval for the study was granted on 26 August 2020 by the Ethics Commission of Witten/Herdecke University (reference number: 156/2020). In the long run, the implementation of an agreed concept on patient relevance will help improve the comparability of study results regarding the patient benefit and thereby strengthen the role of patients in the decision-making process. Also, the experiences regarding grading outcomes according to importance will help to develop a method on how to individualise clinical trial outcomes according to each patient's individual specifics and priorities in order to more adequately represent the patient perspective in clinical research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative (registration number: 1685).
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.