ArticleBMJ open2025
Lived experiences and insights of Chinese patients with symptomatic osteoporosis on a patient-reported outcome (PRO) programme: a qualitative phenomenological study in Southwest China.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- Osteoporosis and fragility fracture burden in Asia Pacific: Key findings from the APCO-IOF Asia Pacific Regional Audit.Osteoporosis and sarcopenia · 2026Review
- Living with osteoporosis: a qualitative descriptive study.Archives of osteoporosis · 2025Article
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
objectivesTo explore the lived experiences of patients with symptomatic osteoporosis on a patient-reported outcomes (PROs) programme for symptom management and quality of life (QoL) improvement.
designThis is a qualitative phenomenological study.
setting
participants14 active participants in the PROs programme were recruited and interviewed through semi-structured face-to-face interviews. Colaizzi's seven-step method was employed for thematic analysis.
resultsFour overarching themes and two sub-themes emerged, including (1) varied perceptions of the PROs programme, where some participants found it beneficial for tracking symptoms while others cited challenges such as technological barriers and lack of actionable outcomes; (2) PROs as a tool for enhancing communication and facilitating appointments by enabling more efficient doctor-patient interactions and quicker scheduling; (3) emotional support provided by regular doctor-patient communication, with sub-themes of fostering a sense of belonging and offering psychological comfort; and (4) limitations of remote communication, highlighting challenges in addressing complex medical needs and providing immediate solutions for medication adjustments.
conclusionsPROs programmes facilitate symptom tracking, enhance communication and provide emotional support for patients with osteoporosis. However, limitations such as technological barriers and reliance on remote communication must be addressed. Ethical considerations, including potential over-reporting of symptoms to expedite care, require careful management. Future research should include patients who discontinue participating in the PROs programme prematurely and the perspectives of healthcare providers to provide a more balanced, comprehensive understanding.
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.