Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34324137›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2022

Patients' and parents' perspective on the implementation of Patient Reported Outcome Measures in pediatric clinical practice using the KLIK PROM portal.

Maud M van Muilekom, Lorynn Teela, Hedy A van Oers, Johannes B van Goudoever, Martha A Grootenhuis, Lotte Haverman

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Qualitative insights from patient/caregivers, and clinicians on routine use of the EQ-5D-Y-5L in clinical paediatric care-results from a pilot feasibility and acceptability trial.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Development of a Core Patient-Reported Outcome (Measures) Set for Pediatric Physical Therapy.Pediatric physical therapy : the official publication of the Section on Pediatrics of the American Physical Therapy Association · 2026
    Article
  7. Designing oncology-specific patient-reported outcome dashboards: end-user preferences for reference curve inclusion and visualization in pediatric cancer care.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  8. From framework to practice: applying the proteus-practice framework to learn lessons for integrating PROs in clinical care.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Making sense of PROM outcomes: a mixed method study to optimize graphical visualization formats for children.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Reducing patient burden of PROMs in healthcare through advanced computerized adaptive testing stopping rules.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Adherence to daily electronic symptom screening in pediatric cancer: associations with time, location and pain.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Maud M van Muilekom *Child and Adolescent Psychiatry & Psychosocial Care, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Emma Children's Hospital, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9540-6254
Lorynn Teela *Child and Adolescent Psychiatry & Psychosocial Care, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Emma Children's Hospital, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8067-2792
Hedy A van OersChild and Adolescent Psychiatry & Psychosocial Care, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Emma Children's Hospital, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7342-4953
Johannes B van GoudoeverDepartment of Pediatrics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Emma Children's Hospital, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Martha A GrootenhuisPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Lotte HavermanChild and Adolescent Psychiatry & Psychosocial Care, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Emma Children's Hospital, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. l.haverman@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7849-0562

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe KLIK Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) portal ( www.hetklikt.nu ) has been implemented since 2011 in clinical practice in over 20 Dutch hospitals. Patients and/or parents complete PROMs before the outpatient consultation and answers are subsequently discussed by clinicians during consultation. This study aims to provide insight into patients' and parents' perspective on the use of the KLIK PROM portal in order to optimize its implementation in pediatric clinical practice.

methodsPatients (12-19 years) and parents (of children 0-19 years) from the Emma Children's Hospital were invited to participate. A mixed-method design was used; (1) Focus groups were held and analyzed using thematic analysis in psychology, (2) a questionnaire was sent out and analyzed using descriptive statistics.

results(1) Eight patients and 17 parents participated. Patients mentioned that KLIK has an attractive layout. However, PROMs were sometimes considered irrelevant and repetitive. Parents valued that KLIK provides insight into their child's functioning, but they were not satisfied with the extent to which PROMs were discussed by clinicians. (2) 31 patients and 130 parents completed the questionnaire. Overall, patients and parents reported a satisfaction score of 7.9/10 and 7.3/10, respectively. 81% of patients and 74% of parents indicated that KLIK is easy to use.

conclusionPatients and parents are generally satisfied with KLIK, however, points of improvement were mentioned. These are currently being addressed by e.g., upgrading the KLIK website, implementing PROMIS item banks in KLIK to reduce irrelevancy and repetitiveness of PROMs, and implementation strategies to improve the discussion-rate. In this way, implementation of the KLIK PROM portal can be further optimized, with the ultimate goal to improve quality of care.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeChildHumansMotivationParentsSurveys and QuestionnairesPatient engagementPatient Reported OutcomesPediatricsQuestionnaires

Identifiers

PMID34324137
PMCPMC8800898

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.