ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024
Design, implementation and usability analysis of patient empowerment in ADLIFE project via patient reported outcome measures and shared decision making.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of the ADLIFE intervention as a digital solution for patients with advanced chronic diseases: a quasi-experimental trial.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Perceptions of the Values and Outcomes to Improve Cancer Experiences (VOICE) tool: a digital values-clarification instrument and tailored summary report for older adults with advanced cancer.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- Supporting Shared Decision-Making in Life-Altering Kidney Therapy Decisions for Older Adults: A Review.JAMA internal medicine · 2025Review
- The Impact of Digital Intervention Messages Targeting Users With High Blood Pressure Events: Retrospective Real-World Study.JMIR cardio · 2025Article
- Usefulness of the LAVITA Telemonitoring System in Patients With Heart Failure - A Feasibility Study.Circulation reports · 2025Article
- Evaluating remote healthcare practices: Experiences and recommendations of healthcare professionals on smart applications.Digital 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis paper outlines the design, implementation, and usability study results of the patient empowerment process for chronic disease management, using Patient Reported Outcome Measurements and Shared Decision-Making Processes.
backgroundThe ADLIFE project aims to develop innovative, digital health solutions to support personalized, integrated care for patients with severe long-term conditions such as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and/or Chronic Heart Failure. Successful long-term management of patients with chronic conditions requires active patient self-management and a proactive involvement of patients in their healthcare and treatment. This calls for a patient-provider partnership within an integrated system of collaborative care, supporting self-management, shared-decision making, collection of patient reported outcome measures, education, and follow-up.
methodsADLIFE follows an outcome-based and patient-centered approach where PROMs represent an especially valuable tool to evaluate the outcomes of the care delivered. We have selected 11 standardized PROMs for evaluating the most recent patients' clinical context, enabling the decision-making process, and personalized care planning. The ADLIFE project implements the "SHARE approach' for enabling shared decision-making via two digital platforms for healthcare professionals and patients. We have successfully integrated PROMs and shared decision-making processes into our digital toolbox, based on an international interoperability standard, namely HL7 FHIR. A usability study was conducted with 3 clinical sites with 20 users in total to gather feedback and to subsequently prioritize updates to the ADLIFE toolbox.
resultsUser satisfaction is measured in the QUIS7 questionnaire on a 9-point scale in the following aspects: overall reaction, screen, terminology and tool feedback, learning, multimedia, training material and system capabilities. With all the average scores above 6 in all categories, most respondents have a positive reaction to the ADLIFE PEP platform and find it easy to use. We have identified shortcomings and have prioritized updates to the platform before clinical pilot studies are initiated.
conclusionsHaving finalized design, implementation, and pre-deployment usability studies, and updated the tool based on further feedback, our patient empowerment mechanisms enabled via PROMs and shared decision-making processes are ready to be piloted in clinal settings. Clinical studies will be conducted based at six healthcare settings across Spain, UK, Germany, Denmark, and Israel.
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.