SynthesisJournal of patient-reported outcomes2024
A systematic review of qualitative studies examining barriers and facilitators to orthopaedic surgeon engagement with patient-reported outcome measures data.
Synthesis 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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early inpatient patient-reported recovery experiences after open inguinal hernia repair in Pakistan: a qualitative phenomenological study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- Barriers and facilitators of implementing patient-reported outcome measures in clinical care using the CFIR-ERIC framework.Scientific reports · 2026Article
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
backgroundOrthopaedic surgeon engagement with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data has not been comprehensively evaluated, despite increasing uptake of orthopaedic PROMs programmes globally. The aim of this review was to systematically identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative evidence on barriers and facilitators to orthopaedic surgeons' engagement with PROMs data and their use of these data to support clinical practice.
methodsSix databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE CENTRAL, PSYCINFO, CINAHL and EMCARE) were searched from January 2000-March 2024 to identify potentially eligible qualitative studies. Established systematic review methods were used for screening and data extraction, applying PRISMA guidelines. Quality assessment was undertaken using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool for qualitative research.
resultsEight studies were eligible for inclusion; of these, five studies were qualitative and three studies were mixed-method designs incorporating a qualitative component. Three studies were specific to orthopaedic surgeons and the remaining five studies comprised of mixed samples of health professionals including orthopaedic surgeons. Only one study was classified as being of high methodological quality. Key barrier themes for orthopaedic surgeons were logistical issues, difficulty interpreting and understanding PROMs, and scepticism of the value of PROMs in clinical care. Key enabler themes included improvements to PROMs infrastructure, surgeon education around the potential value, uses and interpretation of PROMs data, aggregate reporting of PROMs data and early involvement of surgeons in the planning and development of PROM systems.
conclusionWhile these studies highlight some practical considerations and opportunities that can be addressed through clinician education, there is little high-quality evidence on factors that influence orthopaedic surgeon engagement with PROMs data. Robust qualitative research is needed to better inform tailored support and assist surgeons in integrating PROMs data within orthopaedic care.
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.