Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38041742›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2024

Using a multi-stakeholder co-design process to develop a health service organisation-wide patient reported outcome measure collection system.

Kim Naude, Nadine E Andrew, Velandai Srikanth, Emily Parker, Lucy Marsh, Richard Beare, Roisin McNaney, David A Snowdon

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in oncology practice: a communication-centered qualitative study on patient and healthcare professional perspectives.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Feasibility of implementing a codesigned patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) collection system for older adults in acute and sub-acute hospital settings.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    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.

Kim NaudeNational Centre for Healthy Ageing, 2 Hastings Road, Frankston, VIC, Australia. kim.naude@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2118-4729
Nadine E AndrewNational Centre for Healthy Ageing, 2 Hastings Road, Frankston, VIC, Australia.
Velandai SrikanthNational Centre for Healthy Ageing, 2 Hastings Road, Frankston, VIC, Australia.
Emily ParkerNational Centre for Healthy Ageing, 2 Hastings Road, Frankston, VIC, Australia.
Lucy MarshNational Centre for Healthy Ageing, 2 Hastings Road, Frankston, VIC, Australia.
Richard BeareNational Centre for Healthy Ageing, 2 Hastings Road, Frankston, VIC, Australia.
Roisin McNaneyAction Lab, Department of Human Centered Computing, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
David A SnowdonNational Centre for Healthy Ageing, 2 Hastings Road, Frankston, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLimited examples exist of successful Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) implementation across an entire healthcare organisation. The aim of this study was to use a multi-stakeholder co-design process to develop a PROM collection system, which will inform implementation of routine collection of PROMs across an entire healthcare organisation.

methodsCo-design comprised semi-structured interviews with clinicians (n = 11) and workshops/surveys with consumers (n = 320). The interview guide with clinicians focused on their experience using PROMs, preferences for using PROMs, and facilitators/barriers to using PROMs. Co-design activities specific to consumers focused on: (1) how PROMs will be administered (mode), (2) when PROMs will be administered (timing), (3) who will assist with PROMs collection, and (4) how long a PROM will take to complete. Data were analysed using a manifest qualitative content analysis approach.

resultsCore elements identified during the co-design process included: PROMs collection should be consumer-led and administered by someone other than a clinician; collection at discharge from the healthcare organisation and at 3-6 months post discharge would be most suitable for supporting comprehensive assessment; PROMs should be administered using a variety of modes to accommodate the diversity of consumer preferences, with electronic as the default; and the time taken to complete PROMs should be no longer than 5-10 min.

conclusionThis study provides new information on the co-design of a healthcare organisation-wide PROM collection system. Implementing a clinician and patient informed strategy for PROMs collection, that meets their preferences across multiple domains, should address known barriers to routine collection.

Indexed as

AftercarePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresHumansPatient DischargeQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesCollection systemHealthcare organisationMulti-stakeholder co-designPatient reported outcome measures

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.