Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39159444›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2024

Acceptability, Perceptions, and Experiences Regarding Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Feasibility Study.

Kareem Choucair, Mark Corrigan, Adrian O'Sullivan, Sean Barber, Lucja Stankiewicz, Patrick Henn, Oscar Dennehy, Mohd Yasser Kayyal, Yong Yu Tan, Kayode Philip Fadahunsi and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Kareem ChoucairSchool of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork City, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-4577-8524
Mark CorriganCork University Hospital, Cork City, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-9615-6450
Adrian O'SullivanMercy University Hospital, Cork City, Ireland.ORCID 0009-0000-4556-0966
Sean BarberCork University Hospital, Cork City, Ireland.ORCID 0009-0005-5555-6430
Lucja StankiewiczMercy University Hospital, Cork City, Ireland.ORCID 0009-0007-0598-7181
Patrick HennAssert Research Centre, University College Cork, Cork City, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-5958-6163
Oscar DennehyCork University Hospital, Cork City, Ireland.ORCID 0009-0003-4318-4823
Mohd Yasser KayyalSchool of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork City, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-8189-3239
Yong Yu TanCork University Hospital, Cork City, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-9333-7563
Kayode Philip FadahunsiDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1470-5493
John O'DonoghueAssert Research Centre, University College Cork, Cork City, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-6056-8640

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be defined as any report of a patient's health taken directly from the patient. Routine collection of PRO data has been shown to offer potential benefits to patient-doctor communication. Electronic forms of PRO measures (PROMs) could be more beneficial in comparison to traditional PROMs in obtaining PROs from patients. However, it is currently unclear whether the routine collection of electronic PRO data could result in better outcomes for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

objectiveThis study aims to explore the perspectives of patients and surgeons on the use of electronic PROMs. Based on prior research, technical skill and experience level of the surgeon, long-term quality of life, patient involvement in decision-making, communication skills of the surgeon, cleanliness of the ward environment, and standards of nursing care are identified to be the most important factors for the patients.

methodsThis is a mixed methods prospective study that will collect both quantitative (survey) and qualitative (interview) data. The study has two components. The first involves the distribution of an electronic presurvey to patients who received elective LC within 48 hours of their surgery (n=80). This survey will explore the perspective of patients regarding the procedure, hospital experience, long-term outcomes, and the perceived value of using PROMs. These patients will then be followed up after 1 year and given another survey. The second component involves the distribution of the same survey and the completion of structured interviews with general surgeons (n=10). The survey will ascertain what PROs from the participants are most useful for the surgeons and the interviews will focus on how the surgeons view routine PRO collection. A convenience sampling approach will be used. Surveys will be distributed through Qualtrics and interviews will be completed on Microsoft Teams.

resultsData collection began on February 14, 2023. As of February 12, 2024, 71 of 80 recruited patients have been given the presurvey. The follow-up with the patients and the general surgeon components of the study have not begun. The expected completion date of this study is in April 2025.

conclusionsOverall, this study will investigate the potential of electronic PRO collection to offer value for patients and general surgeons. This approach will ensure that patient care is investigated in a multifaceted way, offering patient-centric guidance to surgeons in their approach to care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/57344.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicFeasibility StudiesPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSurveys and Questionnairesdata collectiondigital technologyeHealthelectronic patientgeneral surgeonhepatobiliary surgeryinterviewlaparoscopic cholecystectomyMicrosoft Teamsmixed methodspatient carepatient-centricpatient-doctor communicationpatient-reported outcomesprospective studyqualitativeQualtricsquantitativesurgery

Identifiers

PMID39159444
PMCPMC11369529

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.