ArticleJMIR dermatology2024
Development, Feasibility, and Acceptability of the Electronic Patient Benefit Index for Psoriasis in Clinical Practice: Mixed Methods Study.
Article in JMIR dermatology, 2024. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcomes are relevant in clinical practice showing patient benefits, supporting clinicians' decision-making, and contributing to the delivery of high standards of care. Digital monitoring of patient-reported outcomes is still rare. The Patient Benefit Index (PBI) measures benefits and goals from patients' views and may be relevant for regular documentation and shared decision-making.
objectiveThis study aimed to develop electronic versions of the PBI to examine their feasibility and acceptability in clinical practice for patients with psoriasis.
methodsWe developed an app and a web version of the existing, valid PBI using focus groups and cognitive debriefings with patients before conducting a quantitative survey on its feasibility and acceptability. Conduction took part in an outpatient dermatology care unit in Germany. Descriptive and subgroup analyses were conducted.
resultsA total of 139 patients completed the electronic PBIs (ePBIs) and took part in the survey. The ePBI was understandable (n=129-137, 92.8%-98.6%) and feasible, for example, easy to read (n=135, 97.1%) and simple to handle (n=137, 98.5%). Acceptability was also high, for example, patients can imagine using and discussing the ePBI data in practice (n=91, 65.5%) and documenting it regularly (n=88, 63.3%). They believe it could support treatment decisions (n=118, 84.9%) and improve communication with their physician (n=112, 81.3%). They can imagine filling in electronic questionnaires regularly (n=118, 84.9%), even preferring electronic over paper versions (n=113, 81.2%). Older and less educated people show less feasibility, but the latter expected the relationship with their physician to improve and would be more willing to invest time or effort.
conclusionsThe app and web version of the PBI are usable and acceptable for patients offering comprehensive documentation and patient participation in practice. An implementation strategy should consider patients' needs, barriers, and facilitators but also physicians' attitudes and requirements from the health care system.
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.