ArticleCJC open2024
Using Implementation Science to Evaluate the Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in a Clinical Heart Failure Care Setting.
Article in CJC open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Chiropractor perspectives on the use of patient reported outcome measures: a survey of Veterans Health Administration chiropractors.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) can experience a poor quality-of-life (QOL), recurring hospitalizations, and progressive disease symptoms. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) integrate patients' voices into clinical care, by assessing patient symptoms, function, and QOL. In 2022, PROMs were incorporated into the electronic health record system (Epic) at a large academic hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The purpose of this study was to use implementation-science frameworks to systematically evaluate the uptake and integration of PROMs into clinical HF care. Methods: The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework guided this mixed-methods, 1-year, quality-improvement project. Data sources included the following: clinician use of PROMs; patient-level data on completed PROMs; and semistructured interviews with clinicians. The PROM was the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12, which captures 4 domains related to HF-symptom frequency, physical limitations, social limitations, and QOL (KCCQ-12 is used as an example case of PROMs in general). Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics; qualitative data were analyzed using behaviour-change frameworks and latent content analysis. Results: Over the course of 1 year, more patients were assigned to PROMs, a higher proportion of patients completed PROMs, and approximately 80% of patients had high scores on the questionnaire. Clinicians experience barriers-related to attention and decision processes, the environmental context, and their professional role-to integrating PROMs into practice. Suggested changes to improve PROM uptake include adding language licenses for PROM translations, reducing cognitive load for clinicians who are assigning and interpreting PROMs in the Epic system, and championing modelling of use of PROMs in practice. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the benefit of using implementation science frameworks, to evaluate the implementation of PROMs in practice and provide actionable recommendations to health systems.
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.