ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Coaching Patients to Understand and Use Patient-Reported Outcome Data: Intervention Design and Evaluation.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Providing patients with information about their health and treatment options is important to ensure care that best reflects patient needs, values, and preferences. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), measures of health status, are regularly collected in clinical contexts and scores can be returned to patients in personalized decision aids. One example of a PRO-based decision aid is the Arthritis care through Shared Knowledge (ASK) report, which shares individual PRO data on knee and hip arthritis-related pain and functional limitations with patients. However, given that the use of such data in clinical consultations is unfamiliar to many patients, support may be required to ensure this information is understood and used as intended. Objective: This paper describes ASK coaching, an online 1-hour group session designed to ensure patients understood the ASK report, including their PRO scores, and how to use the information in conversations with their clinicians. We present (1) quantitative evaluation results associated with attendance and self-assessment of learning and (2) qualitative evaluation results on motivation to attend, acceptability of the session format, and achievement of session goals. Methods: The session was designed and refined collaboratively with clinical experts and patient advisers. Patients in one arm of a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial evaluating the ASK report were invited to attend this session. To understand the profile of attendees (N=438) sociodemographic and clinical data were compared with all participants invited to coaching (N=1545) and a patient-reported assessment of self-efficacy was collected on a subset (N=692). In addition, a postsession survey was used to self-assess learning. Qualitative data were synthesized from semistructured postcoaching interviews, paired pre- and postcoaching interviews, and free-text responses to a postsession survey. A qualitative descriptive approach was used for analysis. Results: Compared with nonattendees, patients reporting higher education, greater health literacy, Medicare insurance, and lower self-efficacy for managing treatments were more likely to attend ASK coaching when invited. Participants' self-assessment of learning showed an improved understanding of current and projected osteoarthritis symptoms and where to find additional information. Qualitatively, patients reported attending coaching to gain information that could benefit their treatment or aid in research. The online group format was generally described as acceptable, and the session goals related to understanding the report and preparing for future conversations with clinicians were met. Suggestions for improvement, such as providing more opportunities for within-group interaction, were also provided. Conclusions: Our results highlight the value of coaching as an intervention to help patients understand and use novel health information, including PRO data, in conversations with clinicians. Given that it was well-liked by patients, promoting a greater understanding of the PRO-based ASK report, and increased feelings of preparedness for clinical consultation, coaching appears to be a promising intervention to support patients in understanding and using their personal health data.
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.