Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39100988›Full record

ReviewJAMIA open2024

Barriers and facilitators to the uptake of electronic collection and use of patient-reported measures in routine care of older adults: a systematic review with qualitative evidence synthesis.

Gayanika M Hettiarachchi Senarath, Pari Delir Haghighi, Lu Bai, Michelle M Shannon, Nadine E Andrew, Velandai Srikanth, David A Snowdon, Denise A O'Connor

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JAMIA open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Feasibility of implementing a codesigned patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) collection system for older adults in acute and sub-acute hospital settings.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

8 authors.

Gayanika M Hettiarachchi SenarathDepartment of Human-Centred Computing, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia.
Pari Delir HaghighiDepartment of Human-Centred Computing, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia.
Lu BaiDepartment of Human-Centred Computing, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia.
Michelle M ShannonAcademic Unit, Frankston Hospital, Peninsula Health, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6805-078X
Nadine E AndrewAcademic Unit, Frankston Hospital, Peninsula Health, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia.
Velandai SrikanthAcademic Unit, Frankston Hospital, Peninsula Health, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia.
David A SnowdonAcademic Unit, Frankston Hospital, Peninsula Health, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia.
Denise A O'ConnorSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The aims of this systematic review were to (1) synthesize the available qualitative evidence on the barriers and facilitators influencing implementation of the electronic collection and use of patient-reported measures (PRMs) in older adults' care from various stakeholder perspectives and (2) map these factors to the digital technology implementation framework Materials and Methods: A search of MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, and Web of Science databases from 1 January 2001 to 27 October 2021 was conducted and included English language qualitative studies exploring stakeholder perspectives on the electronic collection and use of PRMs in older adults' care. Two authors independently screened studies, conducted data extraction, quality appraisal using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP), data coding, assessed confidence in review findings using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE CERQual), and mapped the findings to NASSS and COM-B. An inductive approach was used to synthesize findings describing the stakeholder perspectives of barriers and facilitators. Results: Twenty-two studies were included from the 3368 records identified. Studies explored older adult, caregiver, healthcare professional, and administrative staff perspectives. Twenty nine of 34 review findings (85%) were graded as having high or moderate confidence. Key factors salient to older adults related to clinical conditions and socio-cultural factors, digital literacy, access to digital technology, and user interface. Factors salient to healthcare professionals related to resource availability to collect and use PRMs, and value of PRMs collection and use. Conclusion: Future efforts to implement electronic collection and use of PRMs in older adults' care should consider addressing the barriers, facilitators, and key theoretical domains identified in this review. Older adults are more likely to adopt electronic completion of PRMs when barriers associated with digital technology access, digital literacy, and user interface are addressed. Future research should explore the perspectives of other stakeholders, including those of organizational leaders, digital technology developers and implementation specialists, in various healthcare settings and explore factors influencing implementation of PREMs. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022295894.

Indexed as

barrierselectronic patient reported experience measureelectronic patient reported outcome measurefacilitatorsimplementation science

Identifiers

PMID39100988
PMCPMC11296862

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.