ArticleBMJ open2022
Impetus of US hospital leaders to invest in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Patient experience following CT-guided percutaneous lumbar discectomy under local anesthesia: a prospective study.European radiology · 2025Observational
- Towards enhancing the representativeness of patient-reported outcomes collection at community cancer centers.Advances in patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- How to Promote the Development of Nurses' Moral Competence According to Patient Representatives: A European Qualitative Study.Journal of nursing management · 2025Article
- Article
- Measuring Patient Well-Being During Whole-Person Clinical Care: Lessons From the Veterans Health Administration Well-Beings Signs Implementation Pilot.Medical care · 2024Article
- Article
- Does Wound VAC Temporization Offer Patient-Reported Outcomes Similar to Single-Stage Excision Reconstruction After Myxofibrosarcoma Resection?Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThough hospital leaders across the USA have invested significant resources in collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), there are very limited data on the impetus for hospital leadership to establish PROM programmes. In this qualitative study, we identify the drivers and motivators of PROM collection among hospital leaders in the USA.
designExploratory qualitative study.
settingThirty-seven hospital leaders representing seven different institutions with successful PROMs programs across twenty US states.
methodsSemistructured interviews conducted with hospital leaders. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.
resultsLeaders strongly believe that collecting PROMs is the 'right thing to do' and that the culture of the institution plays an important role in enabling PROMs. The study participants often believe that their institutions deliver superior care and that PROMs can be used to demonstrate the value of their services to payors and patients. Direct financial incentives are relatively weak motivators for collection of PROMs. Most hospital leaders have reservations about using PROMs in their current state as a meaningful performance metric.
conclusionThese findings suggest that hospital leaders feel a strong moral imperative to collect PROMs, which is also supported by the culture of their institution. Although PROMs are used in negotiations with payors, direct financial return on investment is not a strong driver for the collection of PROMs. Understanding why leaders of major healthcare institutions invest in PROMs is critical to understanding the role that PROMs play in the US healthcare system.
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.