Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34446501›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Using patient-reported outcome measures during the management of patients with end-stage kidney disease requiring treatment with haemodialysis (PROM-HD): a qualitative study.

Nicola Elzabeth Anderson, Christel McMullan, Melanie Calvert, Mary Dutton, Paul Cockwell, Olalekan L Aiyegbusi, Derek Kyte

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Where Are Patients' Voices in Chronic Kidney Disease?Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nicola Elzabeth AndersonResearch and Development, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK NEA451@bham.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0614-3198
Christel McMullanCentre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0878-1513
Melanie CalvertCentre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1856-837X
Mary DuttonResearch and Development, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Paul CockwellDepartment of Renal Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Olalekan L AiyegbusiCentre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Derek KyteCentre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7679-6741
University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPatients undergoing haemodialysis report elevated symptoms and reduced health-related quality of life, and often prioritise improvements in psychosocial well-being over long-term survival. Systematic collection and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) may help support tailored healthcare and improve outcomes. This study investigates the methodological basis for routine PRO assessment, particularly using electronic formats (ePROs), to maximise the potential of PRO use, through exploration of the experiences, views and perceptions of patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) on implementation and use of PROs in haemodialysis settings. STUDY

designQualitative study. SETTING AND

participantsSemistructured interviews with 22 patients undergoing haemodialysis, and 17 HCPs in the UK. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Transcripts were analysed deductively using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and inductively using thematic analysis.

resultsFor effective implementation, the potential value of PROs needs to be demonstrated empirically to stakeholders. Any intervention must remain flexible enough for individual and aggregate use, measuring outcomes that matter to patients and clinicians, while maintaining operational simplicity. Any implementation must sit within a wider framework of education and support for both patients and clinicians who demonstrate varying previous experience of using PROs and often confuse related concepts. Implementation plans must recognise the multidimensionality of end-stage kidney disease and treatment by haemodialysis, while acknowledging the associated challenges of delivering care in a highly specialised environment. To support implementation, careful consideration needs to be given to barriers and facilitators including effective leadership, the role of champions, effective launch and ongoing evaluation.

conclusionsUsing the CFIR to explore the experiences, views and perceptions of key stakeholders, this study identified key factors at organisational and individual levels which could assist effective implementation of ePROs in haemodialysis settings. Further research will be required to evaluate subsequent ePRO interventions to demonstrate the impact and benefit to the dialysis community.

Indexed as

Kidney Failure, ChronicQuality of LifeHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQualitative ResearchRenal Dialysisdialysisend stage renal failurenephrologyqualitative researchtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID34446501
PMCPMC8395280
OpenAlexW3194355198

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.