ArticlePLOS digital health2025
A scoping review of the electronic collection and capture of patient reported outcome measures for children and young people in the hospital setting.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) capture patients' views of their health status and the use of PROMs as part of standard care of children and young people has the potential to improve communication between patients/carers and clinicians and the quality of care. Electronic systems for the collection of or access to PROMs and integrating PROMs into electronic health records facilitates their implementation in routine care and could help maximise their value. Yet little is known about the technical aspects of implementation including the electronic systems available for collection and capture and how this may influence the value of PROMs in routine care which this scoping review aims to explore. The Joanna Briggs Institute review process was used. Seven databases were searched (Emcare, Embase MEDLINE, APA PsychInfo, Scopus and Web of Science), initially in February 2021 and updated in April 2023. Only studies that mentioned the use of electronic systems for the collection, storage and/or access of PROMs as part of standard care of children and young people in secondary (or tertiary) care settings were included. Data were analysed using frequency counts and thematically mapped using basic content analysis in relation to the research questions. From the 372 studies that were eligible for full text review, 85 studies met the inclusion criteria. The findings show that there is great variability in the electronic platforms used in the collection, storage and access of PROMs resulting in different configurations and fragmented approaches to implementation. There appears to be a lack of consideration on the technical aspects of the implementation such as the accessibility, useability and interoperability of the data collected. Electronic platforms for the collection and capture of PROMs in routine care of CYP is popular, yet, further understanding of the technical considerations in the use of electronic systems for implementation is needed to maximise the potential value and support the scalability of PROMs in routine care.
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.