Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39138724›Full record

ArticleThe patient2025

Evaluating Comprehensibility of 157 Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in the Nationwide Dutch Outcome-Based Healthcare Program: More Attention for Comprehensibility of PROMs is Needed.

Attie Tuinenburg, Domino Determann, Elise H Quik, Esmee M van der Willik, Geeske Hofstra, Joannes M Hallegraeff, Ingrid Vriend, Lisanne Warmerdam, Hester E van Bommel, Gudule Boland and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
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

11 authors.

Attie Tuinenburg *National Health Care Institute (Zorginstituut Nederland), Diemen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0007-6772-6585
Domino Determann *National Health Care Institute (Zorginstituut Nederland), Diemen, The Netherlands.
Elise H QuikNational Health Care Institute (Zorginstituut Nederland), Diemen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2314-327X
Esmee M van der WillikNational Health Care Institute (Zorginstituut Nederland), Diemen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9457-5857
Geeske HofstraNational Health Care Institute (Zorginstituut Nederland), Diemen, The Netherlands.
Joannes M HallegraeffNational Health Care Institute (Zorginstituut Nederland), Diemen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2924-1209
Ingrid VriendNational Health Care Institute (Zorginstituut Nederland), Diemen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9605-4019
Lisanne WarmerdamNational Health Care Institute (Zorginstituut Nederland), Diemen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9067-0037
Hester E van BommelDutch Centre of Expertise on Health Disparities, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6314-4576
Gudule BolandDutch Centre of Expertise on Health Disparities, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1109-7963
Martijn A H Oude VoshaarNational Health Care Institute (Zorginstituut Nederland), Diemen, The Netherlands. a.oudevoshaar@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-2438-9973

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPatient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) are increasingly prevalent in healthcare and used for shared decision-making and healthcare quality evaluation. However, the extent to which patients with varying health literacy levels can complete PROMs is often overlooked. This may lead to biased aggregated data and patients being excluded from studies or other PROM collection initiatives. This cross-sectional study evaluates the comprehensibility of 157 well-known and widely used PROM scales using a comprehensibility checklist.

methodsPairs of two independent raters scored 157 PROM scales designed for adults included in the 35 sets of outcome information developed as part of the Dutch Outcome-Based Healthcare Program. The PROM scales were scored on the eight comprehensibility domains of the Pharos Checklist for Questionnaires in Healthcare (PCQH). Interrater agreement of domain ratings was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients or Cohen's kappa. Subsequently, final ratings were established through discussion and used to evaluate the domain-specific comprehensibility rating for each PROM scale.

resultsComprehensibility of a large number of PROM scales (n = 157), which cover a wide range of diseases and conditions across Dutch medical specialist care, was assessed. While most PROM scales were written at an accessible language level, with minimal use of medical terms, instruction clarity, number of questions, and response options emerged as significant issues, affecting a substantial proportion of PROM scales. Interrater agreement was high for most domains of the PCQH.

conclusionThis study highlights the need for greater attention to the comprehensibility of PROMs to ensure their accessibility to all patients, including those with low health literacy. The PCQH can be a valuable tool in PROM development in addition to qualitative methods and in selection processes enabling comparison of comprehensibility between PROMs. However, the PCQH needs further development and validation for these purposes. Enhancing the comprehensibility of PROMs is essential for their effective incorporation in healthcare evaluation and decision-making processes.

Indexed as

ComprehensionHealth LiteracyPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID39138724
PMCPMC11717823

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.