ArticlePloS one2024
Implementing paper-based patient-reported outcome collection within outpatient integrative health and medicine.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Delivery of Whole Systems Traditional Chinese Medicine and Impacts Upon Patient Reported Outcomes During IVF.Global advances in integrative medicine and healthArticle
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
objectiveTo investigate the feasibility of pre- and post-encounter patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure collection within an outpatient integrative health and medicine (IHM) clinic and to characterize factors associated with successful completion.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective review of 27,464 outpatient IHM encounters including 9,520 chiropractic; 8,237 acupuncture; 5,847 massage; 2,345 IHM consultation; and 1,515 osteopathic manipulation treatment encounters at four clinics offering IHM over 18 months. Patients were asked to complete paper questionnaires rating pain, anxiety, and stress from 0-10 immediately pre- and post-encounter. Generalized linear mixed effect regression models were used to examine the relationship between demographic, clinical, and operational covariates and completing (1) pre-encounter and (2) paired (i.e., pre and post) PROs.
resultsPatients (N = 5587, mean age 49 years, 74% white, 77% female) generally presented for musculoskeletal conditions (81.7%), with a chief complaint of pain (55.1%). 21,852 (79.6%) encounters were among patients who completed pre-encounter PROs; 11,709/21,852 (53.6%) completed subsequent post-encounter PROs. Odds of PRO completion were more impacted by provider, operational, and clinical-level factors than patient factors. Covariates associated with increased odds of pre-encounter PRO completion included being female, having additional IHM encounters, and having a pain or anxiety complaint. Covariates associated with increased odds of paired PRO completion included being aged 31-40 vs. 51-60 years and having additional IHM encounters.
conclusionImplementing a paper-based PRO collection system in outpatient IHM is feasible; however, collecting post-encounter PROs was challenging. Future endeavors should leverage the electronic health record and patient portals to optimize PRO collection and engage patients and clinical providers.
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.