Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38649199›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2024

Implementing strategies to improve uptake of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in gender-affirming care: a mixed-methods implementation study.

Rakhshan Kamran, Liam Jackman, Charlie Goodwin, Anna Laws, Melissa Stepney, Conrad Harrison, Abhilash Jain, Jeremy Rodrigues

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Rakhshan KamranNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK rakhshan.kamran@hertford.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4298-4848
Liam JackmanTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Charlie GoodwinNorthern Region Gender Dysphoria Service, Cumbria Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Anna LawsNorthern Region Gender Dysphoria Service, Cumbria Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6164-5097
Melissa StepneyDepartmeny of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Conrad HarrisonNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abhilash JainNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jeremy RodriguesDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Buckinghamshire NHS Trust, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceThe Practical Guide to Implementing PROMs in Gender-Affirming Care (PG-PROM-GAC) is an evidence-based resource, which was developed in response to international calls for improved patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) implementation in gender-affirming care. The PG-PROM-GAC has the potential to improve PROM implementation; however, its real-world effectiveness has not yet been investigated.

objectiveInvestigate effectiveness and fidelity of three implementation strategies from the PG-PROM-GAC in a real-world gender clinic setting.

designInterrupted time series mixed-methods study investigating response rates to a PROM deployed alongside implementation strategies from the PG-PROM-GAC; and open-ended feedback on the fidelity and effectiveness of implementation strategies.

settingParticipants were recruited from a National Health Service (NHS) gender clinic.

participantsEligible participants were being seen at an NHS gender clinic for an appointment during the study period, and were invited to participate in this study via email.

interventionThree implementation strategies from the PG-PROM-GAC deployed alongside a PROM. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Response rates were calculated at 2-week intervals, in line with the deployment of each implementation strategy. Open-ended responses were thematically analysed by two researchers following guidance from implementation science and interpretation from Normalisation Process Theory.

resultsA total of 28 participants were included in this study with a mean (SD) age of 39 (17) years. In general, participants rated education material for PROMs as the most important for PROM implementation, and accessibility options for PROMs as the second most important. Response rates to PROM completion dropped as the study progressed, as the burden of reviewing implementation strategies increased. Results were used to construct recommendations for future PROM implementation efforts. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The PG-PROM-GAC and implementation strategy materials developed from this study (ie, educational video on PROMs co-developed with key stakeholders) can be used by clinicians, researchers and policymakers to lead PROM implementation efforts in gender-affirming care.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultFemaleGender-Affirming CareHumansInterrupted Time Series AnalysisMaleMiddle AgedState MedicineSurveys and QuestionnairesTransgender PersonsHealth EquityHealth services researchImplementation scienceOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient Reported Outcome Measures

Identifiers

PMID38649199
PMCPMC11043758

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.