Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38055759›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

The implementation, use and impact of patient reported outcome measures in value-based healthcare programmes: A scoping review.

Mayara Silveira Bianchim, Ellie Crane, Anwen Jones, Barbara Neukirchinger, Gareth Roberts, Leah Mclaughlin, Jane Noyes

Abstract readScoping Review
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 38 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The VBHC big picture: an umbrella review.BMC health services research · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. The 2025 European Cystic Fibrosis Society position statement on physical activity assessment in cystic fibrosis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025
    Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. A repository of Singapore validated PROMS: a scoping review.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Mayara Silveira BianchimSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3082-7984
Ellie CraneSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom.
Anwen JonesSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom.
Barbara NeukirchingerSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom.
Gareth RobertsAneurin Bevan University Health Board, Newport, United Kingdom.
Leah MclaughlinSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom.
Jane NoyesSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4238-5984

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundValue-Based Healthcare (VBHC) focuses on the value of patient outcomes and is achieved by ensuring resources already available are managed to realise the best possible individual and population health outcomes. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) measure the impact of illnesses from the patient perspective. We conducted a scoping review to understand how PROMs were implemented and used, and their impact in the context of VBHC.

methodsArksey and O'Malley's overarching framework supplemented by principles from mixed-methods Framework Synthesis were used. CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Google Scholar and reference lists were searched. An a priori data extraction framework was created using the review question and objectives as key domains against which to extract data. Mixed-methods data were organised, integrated and preserved in original format and reported for each domain.

resultsForty-three studies were included with 60,200 participants. Few studies reported a well-developed programme theory and we found little robust evidence of effect. PROMs were universally considered to have the potential to increase patient satisfaction with treatment and services, enhance patient awareness of symptoms and self-management, and improve health outcomes such as quality of life and global health status. Evidence is currently limited on how PROMs work and how best to optimally implement PROMs to achieve the target outcome. Implementation challenges commonly prevented the realisation of optimal outcomes and patients generally needed better and clearer communication about why PROMs were being given and how they could optimally be used to support their own self-management.

conclusionPROMSs have yet to demonstrate their full potential in a VBHC context. Optimal PROMs implementation is poorly understood by clinicians and patients. Future studies should explore different models of PROM implementation and use within VBHC programmes to understand what works best and why for each specific context, condition, and population.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeValue-Based Health CareHealth FacilitiesHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient Satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID38055759
PMCPMC10699630

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.