ArticleACI open2024
Stakeholder Perspectives on the Meaningful Integration of Clinical Informatics Interventions Using Patient-Reported Outcomes in Healthcare.
Article in ACI open, 2024. 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.
- Timely Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Care: Insights From Clinicians and Health Informatics Experts.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Adding the patient perspective: the necessity of patient reported outcomes in cardiac surgery clinical trials.Current opinion in cardiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) capture where patients are on their disease trajectory and can identify changes in health status from their perspective. Objectives: This study applied the equity and sustainability-informed RE-AIM framework (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) to gain insights into clinical informatics interventions for collection and use of PROs across health systems. Methods: A total of 14 health informatics and clinical professionals were interviewed about the development and use of PROs within their health systems and individual practices. Directed content analysis was performed to highlight patterns, similarities, and differences in stakeholder perspectives across RE-AIM domains. Results: The reach of clinical informatics interventions using PROs varied across clinical practices and settings based upon institutional commitment and support, integration of clinical information systems, and engagement with patients and families. Although interventions using PROs were viewed as effective for enabling focused conversations with patients and facilitating shared decision-making, barriers to adoption included licensing requirements associated with PRO instruments, lack of incentives for their use, limited integration of PRO results into electronic medical record systems, and poor support for patients with low technology and/or health literacy. Implementation of interventions using PROs was facilitated through training and support staff who aided clinicians with clinical workflow integration, availability of questionnaires in multiple languages, identifying thresholds and strategies for action, and presenting interpretable visualizations showing changes over time alongside significant clinical events. Maintenance of interventions using PROs was enabled through multimodal data collection approaches and data governance groups that evaluated organizational requests to track new measures. Conclusion: Initiatives to increase the reach of clinical informatics interventions using PROs will require health system investments into medical record system integration, education, and implementation support for clinicians and patients, and efforts to reach patient populations with language barriers or limited technology literacy.
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.