ArticleBMC women's health2024
Using an electronic patient reported outcome measure (ePAQ-MPH) to assess potential harm for long-waiting patients in gynaecology.
Article in BMC women's health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, outpatient waits for gynaecology appointments increased by 60% in the UK National Health Service (NHS). The aim of this study was to use the electronic Personal Assessment Questionnaire-Menstrual, Pain and Hormonal (ePAQ-MPH) electronic patient reported outcome measure (ePROM) to assess symptoms, impact and potential harm for patients waiting > 60 weeks for general gynaecology appointments at a teaching hospital.
methods1070 patients waiting > 60 weeks for a new appointment (range 60-72 weeks) were invited to complete ePAQ-MPH online to measure gynaecological symptoms and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). Patients could also call to cancel appointments no longer needed. Non-responders were telephoned weekly for three further weeks and asked to complete ePAQ-MPH. Patients scoring > 80/100 for ePAQ-MPH domains relating to HRQoL had their appointment escalated to be seen within six-eight weeks. Thematic content analysis was undertaken of free-text concerns recorded using ePAQ-MPH.
results526 patients completed ePAQ-MPH (49.2%), 169 of these scored greater than 80/100 for one or more HRQoL domains and were seen within 6-8 weeks. 103 patients (9.6%) requested to cancel their appointment. Reasons included problem resolving spontaneously (33%), problem treated by general practitioner (10%) and being seen by a private provider (28%). Commonly recorded free-text concerns related to wanting a diagnosis (n = 142), management of condition (n = 98) and pain management (n = 77).
conclusionsePAQ-MPH may be used effectively to prioritise patients waiting for an outpatient appointment in gynaecology. Wider use of ePROMs to support waiting list validation within the NHS and elsewhere should be considered.
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.