Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37186606›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Facing the challenges of PROM implementation in Dutch dialysis care: Patients' and professionals' perspectives.

Wim S Sipma, Margriet F C de Jong, Yvette Meuleman, Marc H Hemmelder, Kees C T B Ahaus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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.

Wim S SipmaDepartment of Health Services Management & Organisation, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6950-7887
Margriet F C de JongDepartment of Nephrology, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7347-4344
Yvette MeulemanDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Marc H HemmelderDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Kees C T B AhausDepartment of Health Services Management & Organisation, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9973-3746

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in routine clinical practice to facilitate patients in sharing and discussing health-related topics with their clinician. This study focuses on the implementation experiences of healthcare professionals and patients during the early implementation phase of the newly developed Dutch set of dialysis PROMs and aims to understand the process of early implementation of PROMs from the users' perspectives.

methodsThis is a qualitative study among healthcare professionals (physicians and nursing staff: n = 13) and patients (n = 14) of which 12 were receiving haemodialysis and 2 peritoneal dialysis. Semi-structured interviews were used to understand the barriers and facilitators that both professionals and patients encounter when starting to implement PROMs.

resultsThe early PROM implementation process is influenced by a variety of factors that we divided into barriers and facilitators. We identified four barriers: patient´s indifference to PROMs, scepticism on the benefits of aggregated PROM data, the limited treatment options open to doctors and organizational issues such as mergers, organizational problems and renovations. We also describe four facilitators: professional involvement and patient support, a growing understanding of the use of PROMs during the implementation, quick gains from using PROMs such as receiving instant feedback and a clear ambition on patient care such as a shared view on patient involvement and management support.

conclusionsIn this qualitative study carried out during the early implementation phase of the Dutch dialysis PROM set, we found that patients did not yet consider the PROM set to be a useful additional tool to share information with their doctor. This was despite the professionals' primary reason for using PROMs being to improve patient-doctor communication. Furthermore, the perceived lack of intervention options was frustrating for some of the professionals. We found that nurses could be important enablers of further implementation because of their intensive relationship with dialysis patients.

Indexed as

Peritoneal DialysisRenal DialysisHealth PersonnelHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID37186606
PMCPMC10184911

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.