ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2024
Development and validation of clinical implementation methods for patient-reported outcomes in Japanese multi-center palliative care units.
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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Implementing patient-centred outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice. An updated systematic review of facilitators and barriers.BMC palliative care · 2026Pooled it
- A perspective on the use of patient-reported experience and patient-reported outcome measures in ambulatory healthcare.Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) are recommended for use in clinical oncology. However, they are not routinely used in professional palliative care practices in Japan. The reasons include both patient and healthcare provider factors and the implementation of PROs. This study aimed to develop and validate clinical implementation methods for PROs in Japanese palliative care units.
methodsThe Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was conducted with four palliative care units in Japan. The study was conducted in six steps: unit assessment, development and implementation of a PRO implementation plan, PRO post-implementation survey and analysis of its utilization, a review of the PRO implementation process, creation of a PRO implementation method in a palliative care unit, and use and verification of the implementation method. Steps 1-5 were the development phase, and step 6 was the verification phase.
resultsInterviews were conducted with healthcare providers prior to PRO implementation. Intervention characteristics, patient needs in the palliative care unit, and factors related to the organization were identified as barriers. The implementation plan was developed, and the core members were selected. The implementation procedures were created in the above mentioned steps. PROs were used in the palliative care units. The same was true in the validation phase.
conclusionsThis study guided PROs in specialized palliative care unit in a clinical setting. The method was developed and validated for the implementation of PROs in the palliative care unit. In the PRO implementation process, it was important to assess the unit, address the barriers to implementation, and reduce the burden on healthcare providers. Furthermore, healthcare providers had to be supported by the champion, a person responsible for the implementation of PROs in the palliative care unit.
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.