ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2024
Barriers to and enablers of the use of the Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam in clinical practice-a qualitative post-implementation study.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 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.
- A Surgeon's Field Guide to Value-Based Specialty Care.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam (OQUA) is developed to evaluate multiple ear complaints and their impact on patients' daily lives. The current clinical use of this questionnaire is below the potential utilization.
aimTo identify the barriers and enablers of using the OQUA as perceived by ENT surgeons and patients and provide recommendations for an implementation strategy.
methodsProspective and qualitative analysis was performed using focus groups and interviews with ENT professionals (n = 15) and patients (n = 25) with ear complaints of one tertiary referral hospital and two regional hospitals. Barriers and enablers were identified and classified by using the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behavior model and the Theoretical Domains Framework. Suggestions for an implementation strategy will be made accordingly.
resultsENT professionals' barriers included lack of knowledge and skills to use the OQUA, inadequate technological support and perceived time constraints during consultation, uncertainty about the clinical relevance and lack of feedback on the outcomes of the OQUA. Enablers included beneficial consequences of the OQUA for the professional, organization and science. Patients' barriers included lack of knowledge about the objective and usefulness of the OQUA, perceived burden, difficulties in completing the questionnaire and insufficient feedback during consultation. Patient enablers included beliefs about beneficial consequences of the OQUA for the patient, health care and society. Suggested interventions involved education, training, environmental restructuring and incentivisation.
conclusionBased on the findings, we propose an implementation strategy should focus on education and training about the objective, outcomes and relevance of the OQUA, environmental restructuring regarding the optimal use of the OQUA, and incentivisation with feedback on the valuable outcomes of the OQUA for the patient, professional and healthcare. Future research is needed to determine the feasibility of the implementation strategy.
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.