Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34636988›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2021

The use of patient-reported outcome measures in primary care: applications, benefits and challenges.

Krista Brower, Margo Schmitt-Boshnick, Michel Haener, Shea Wilks, Allison Soprovich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Psychometric properties, and cultural appropriateness, of patient reported outcome measures for use in primary healthcare: a scoping review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors.

Krista BrowerEdmonton Oliver Primary Care Network, #130, 11910 111 Ave, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Margo Schmitt-BoshnickRed Deer Primary Care Network, 5120 47 St, Red Deer, AB, Canada.
Michel HaenerGrande Prairie Primary Care Network, #104, 11745 105 St, Grande Prairie, AB, Canada.
Shea WilksPalliser Primary Care Network, #104, 140 Maple Ave SE, Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada.
Allison SoprovichAlberta PROMs and EQ-5D Research and Support Unit (APERSU), 2-040 Li Ka Shing Center for Health Research Innovation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2E1, Canada. allison.soprovich@ualberta.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6143-1555

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PROMs use in primary care has expanded from simply describing patient populations to contributing to decision-making, in response to the increasingly complex, ever-changing healthcare environment. In Alberta, primary care is organized into primary care networks (PCNs), where family physicians are grouped geographically and supported by allied health professionals. PCNs implement programs and services in response to local population health needs with frequent evaluation, often incorporating PROMs for this purpose. As PCN programs and services vary greatly across Alberta, so do their use of PROMs. An area of commonality is the use of the EQ-5D-5L instrument; 29 out of 41 PCNs are registered and licensed to use the instrument. It is often administrated by paper, pre- and post-program, and in combination with other specific measures, depending on the program or target population. Some PCNs share programming and therefore outcome measurement, but often the selection, implementation (including training and administration procedures) and evaluation/reporting of PROMs are unique to the PCN. As well, data analysis is largely dependent on the size and capacity of the PCN. Using PROMs for PCN program evaluation supports clinical understanding and complements clinical outcomes. PROMs describe the population attending a program, as well as provide an element of consistency when examining trends across multiple programs or timepoints. This contributes to inquiries and decisions around program development, components, administrative features, resource allocation and delivery. Challenges of PROMs use in primary care include the absence of cohesive data capture technology. This limits data capabilities and presents difficulties with data fidelity, storage, export, and analysis. Additionally, this real-world application lacks a control arm and presents methodological challenges for comparative research purposes. Furthermore, capturing long term patient outcomes poses administrative challenges of multiple follow ups. More research is required into best reporting mechanisms to ensure the data is used to its full potential. To overcome these challenges, leadership and clinician engagement are key. As well, determining consistent PCN PROM reporting requirements will ensure data are comparable across PCNs and contribute to provincial level evaluations, further supporting the movement towards overall health system quality improvement.

Identifiers

PMID34636988
PMCPMC8511220

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.