ArticleGlobal & regional health technology assessment
Patient-reported outcomes in epilepsy: a case study exploring their usage and impact.
Article in Global & regional health technology assessment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to obtain insights from epilepsy specialists on the use of Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) measures and how they can affect the management of people with epilepsy and healthcare resource utilization. Methods: The heads of two referral units for people with epilepsy at one tertiary care hospital were invited to respond to a structured survey. Results: Paper-based questionnaires and face-to-face interviews were the main modalities used to measure the quality of life of people with epilepsy. The Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory-31 (QOLIE-31), the Adverse Event Profile (adult centre), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, Short-Form Health Survey 36, PSY-Flex, SAFA and Child Behavior Checklist (paediatric centre) were the most used scales. There was consensus about the favourable impact of PRO upon patient management, disease management and measurement of the success of a treatment. Both respondents considered the PRO as important as other main indicators like efficacy and tolerability of the treatment. Lack of time, personnel and economic resources was identified as a barrier on the use of PRO. The PRO could reduce the number of visits, exams and treatments, and increase the time spent on each patient and the number of neuropsychological, psychological and rehabilitation services. The standardized use of PRO was considered useful and the increase in human resources was considered a priority to achieve this goal. Conclusions: Despite the heterogeneity in the actual collection of PRO, there was a uniform perception about their role to optimize the care of people with epilepsy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.