Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37809473›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Paving the way for patient centricity in real-world evidence (RWE): Qualitative interviews to identify considerations for wider implementation of patient-reported outcomes in RWE generation.

Konrad Maruszczyk, Christel McMullan, Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi, Thomas Keeley, Roger Wilson, Philip Collis, Catherine Bottomley, Melanie J Calvert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  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

8 authors.

Konrad MaruszczykCentre for Patient Reported Outcome Research and Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Christel McMullanCentre for Patient Reported Outcome Research and Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Olalekan Lee AiyegbusiCentre for Patient Reported Outcome Research and Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Thomas KeeleyCentre for Patient Reported Outcome Research and Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Roger WilsonCentre for Patient Reported Outcome Research and Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Philip CollisCentre for Patient Reported Outcome Research and Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Catherine BottomleyVitaccess Ltd., Oxford, UK.
Melanie J CalvertCentre for Patient Reported Outcome Research and Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Real-world evidence (RWE) generation can be enhanced by including patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Methods for collecting and using PRO data in the real-world setting are currently underdeveloped and there is no international guidance specific to its use in this context. This study explored stakeholders' perspectives and needs for using PROs in RWE generation. Barriers, facilitators, and opportunities for wider use of PROs in real-world studies were also investigated. Methods: Online semi-structured interviews were conducted with international stakeholders: patients, patient advocates, regulators, payers, clinicians, academic researchers, and industry experts. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using NVivo 20. Thematic analysis was conducted based on the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results: Twenty-three interviews were conducted. Participants confirmed that the use of PROs in RWE generation is not yet well established. Participants expressed a mixed level of confidence in the value of PROs collected in a real-world setting. Operational challenges associated with collecting routine PRO data to inform care delivery at the individual level (e.g., setting up infrastructure) need to be addressed. Methodological and other challenges (e.g., financing research) associated with collecting prospective Conclusions: Several opportunities and challenges were identified regarding the broader use of PROs in RWE research. Joint efforts from different stakeholders are needed to maximise PRO implementation, with consideration given to each stakeholders' specific needs (e.g., by developing good practices).

Identifiers

PMID37809473
PMCPMC10559915

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.