Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38668901›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2024

Exploring patients' experience using PROMs within routine post-discharge follow-up assessment after stroke: a mixed methods approach.

B M P Mourits, S J den Hartog, J A de Graaf, B Roozenbeek, M W M Post, J M A Visser-Meily, E W M Scholten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

B M P MouritsCenter of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation, Utrecht, The Netherlands. b.m.p.mourits@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID 0009-0000-1051-9031
S J den HartogDepartment of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1650-951X
J A de GraafCenter of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8036-1508
B RoozenbeekDepartment of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8320-8303
M W M PostCenter of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2205-9404
J M A Visser-MeilyCenter of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6444-4733
E W M ScholtenCenter of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3846-0419

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) are being used increasingly to measure health problems in stroke clinical practice. However, the implementation of these PROMs in routine stroke care is still in its infancy. To understand the value of PROMs used in ischemic stroke care, we explored the patients' experience with PROMs and with the consultation at routine post-discharge follow-up after stroke.

methodsIn this prospective mixed methods study, patients with ischemic stroke completed an evaluation questionnaire about the use of PROMs and about their consultation in two Dutch hospitals. Additionally, telephone interviews were held to gain in-depth information about their experience with PROMs.

resultsIn total, 63 patients completed the evaluation questionnaire of which 10 patients were also interviewed. Most patients (82.2-96.6%) found completing the PROMs to be feasible and relevant. Half the patients (49.2-51.6%) considered the PROMs useful for the consultation and most patients (87.3-96.8%) reported the consultation as a positive experience. Completing the PROMs provided 51.6% of the patients with insight into their stroke-related problems. Almost 75% of the patients found the PROMs useful in giving the healthcare provider greater insight, and 60% reported discussing the PROM results during the consultation. Interviewed patients reported the added value of PROMs, particularly when arranging further care, in gaining a broader insight into the problems, and in ensuring all important topics were discussed during the consultation.

conclusionsCompleting PROMs appears to be feasible for patients with stroke attending post-discharge consultation; the vast majority of patients experienced added value for themselves or the healthcare provider. We recommend that healthcare providers discuss the PROM results with their patients to improve the value of PROMs for the patient. This could also improve the willingness to complete PROMs in the future.

Indexed as

Patient DischargePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPatient SatisfactionProspective StudiesStrokeStroke RehabilitationSurveys and QuestionnairesMixed methodPatient perspectivesPatient reported outcome measurePost-discharge consultationPROMRoutine stroke careStroke

Identifiers

PMID38668901
PMCPMC11052975

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.