Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40591164›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025

Enhancing provider adoption of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) through implementation science: insights from two international workshops.

Angela C Wolff, Kate Absolom, Sara Ahmed, Susan J Bartlett, Maria Jose Santana, Angela M Stover, Elizabeth J Austin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Enhancing Measurement Precision of Patient-Reported Outcomes Using Item Response Theory.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Angela C WolffSchool of Nursing, Trinity Western University, Langley, BC, Canada. angela.wolff@twu.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3857-0706
Kate AbsolomLeeds Institute of Health Services Research, Leeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5477-6643
Sara AhmedMcGill University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Research Institute of McGill University Health Centre, Centre de Recherche Interdisciplinaire en Réadaptation (CRIR), Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5172-6790
Susan J BartlettAdjunct Professor Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9755-2490
Maria Jose SantanaDepartments of Paediatrics and Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary and Provincial Lead Patient Engagement, Alberta Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Unit, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0202-5952
Angela M StoverDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, UNC-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0983-686X
Elizabeth J AustinDepartment of Health Systems and Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4221-1362

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in practice is increasing, successful implementation is contingent on engaging healthcare providers (HCPs). Using Implementation Science (IS), we present the content of two workshops hosted at the International Society for Quality-of-Life annual conferences for individuals seeking to implement PROMs collection and use in their settings. Our goals were to provide workshop participants with knowledge, tools, and resources to prepare HCPs for PROM adoption and to demonstrate tailored strategies to meet context-specific needs.

methodsAn interdisciplinary team with diverse expertise in PROMs implementation delivered two workshops guided by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation - Behavior (COM-B) model and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Using dotmocracy, participants were asked to consider, for their local context, the factors most important for changing HCPs' behaviors to adopt PROMs in daily practice.

resultsThe workshops incorporated IS theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) to identify barriers faced by HCPs, support behavior change, and apply tailored theory-informed implementation strategies to prepare HCPs for PROM integration and evaluate adoption success. The factors rated the most important by workshop participants (n = 53) were woven into the discussions to illustrate the most common barriers encountered by HCPs adopting PROMs. Presenters drew on real-world practice and research experiences to identify promising implementation strategies, including education, training, behavioral modeling, persuasion, environmental restructuring, enablement, and audit and feedback to increase the capability, opportunity, and motivation of HCPs.

conclusionsGiven the increasing evidence base supporting the role of PROMs in patient-centered care, it is imperative to understand the mechanisms and best practices for increasing provider adoption of PROMs. This work offers a roadmap for understanding determinants more important to HCPs and systematically selecting theory-informed implementation strategies that may increase the likelihood of HCP adoption of PROMs. Offering tailored HCP training/education programs and implementation strategies can prepare HCPs for timely and effective PROM implementation.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelImplementation SciencePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresEducationHumansMotivationQuality of LifeImplementationImplementation sciencePatient-centred carePatient-reported assessmentsPatient-reported outcomesRoutine outcome measures

Identifiers

PMID40591164
PMCPMC12214070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.