ArticleEuropean journal of cardiovascular nursing2024
Perceptions of patient-reported outcome data access and sharing among patients with heart failure: ethical implications for research.
Article in European journal of cardiovascular nursing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Physician-Reported Facilitators and Barriers for Side Effect Management of Heart Failure Medications.Journal of the American Heart Association · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsIn the face of growing expectations for data transparency and patient engagement in care, we evaluated preferences for patient-reported outcome (PRO) data access and sharing among patients with heart failure (HF) using an ethical framework. METHODS AND
resultsWe conducted qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of patients with HF who participated in a larger 8-week study that involved the collection and return of PROs using a web-based interface. Guided by an ethical framework, patients were asked questions about their preferences for having PRO data returned to them and shared with other groups. Interview transcripts were coded by three study team members using directed content analysis. A total of 22 participants participated in semi-structured interviews. Participants were mostly male (73%), White (68%) with a mean age of 72. Themes were grouped into priorities, benefits, and barriers to data access and sharing. Priorities included ensuring anonymity when data are shared, transparency with intentions of data use, and having access to all collected data. Benefits included: using data as a communication prompt to discuss health with clinicians and using data to support self-management. Barriers included: challenges with interpreting returned results, and potential loss of benefits and anonymity when sharing data.
conclusionOur interviews with HF patients highlight opportunities for researchers to return and share data through an ethical lens, by ensuring privacy and transparency with intentions of data use, returning collected data in comprehensible formats, and meeting individual expectations for data sharing.
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.