ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025
Patients' acceptability of a patient-reported outcome measure in cardiac rehabilitation (the PRO-Heart-DK)-a mixed methods study using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe integration of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) in cardiac rehabilitation practice has potential to enhance patient involvement and management. User acceptance is crucial for successful implementation of healthcare interventions, but limited literature addresses PROM acceptability among cardiovascular patients. This study explored the acceptability of a new national PROM in cardiac rehabilitation clinical practice for patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD) in Denmark.
methodsPatients who responded to the PROM were invited to complete two brief surveys evaluating perceived relevance, usefulness, and satisfaction. A purposefully selected subsample participated in semi structured interviews to gather in-depth experiences. A parallel convergent mixed-methods design was used with the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability applied to structure and interpret findings.
results105 and 119 patients respectively responded to the two evaluation surveys (response-rates 56.5% and 53.4% respectively) and 25 patients were interviewed. The study showed a strong willingness to engage with PROMs, indicating a high overall acceptability. Most patients perceived the PROM helpful for preparation and enhancing communication during consultations. A minority of patients reported emotional reactions and experienced issues with questionnaire comprehensiveness, structure, and relevance.
conclusionThe findings indicate that most IHD patients find PROM relevant and useful in cardiac rehabilitation. To enhance acceptability and, hence, future implementation, improvements are needed in clinical settings by providing adequate patient information, effectively using PRO results, and addressing patients' emotional reactions. Additionally, PROM development should focus on ensuring the questionnaire's relevance, comprehensiveness, and structure.
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.