ArticleThe patient2026
Practical considerations towards the collection of patient reported outcome data among hematopoietic cell transplant recipients.
Article in The patient, 2026. 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
Abstract
backgroundThere is increasing interest in using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess quality of life (QoL) following hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). However, there is limited consensus on how such data should be collected within HCT services. This survey study investigated health professionals (HCPs) views towards QoL data collection and factors affecting the use of PROMs within HCT centres in the UK.
methodIndividual survey items were based upon the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The CFIR consists of five domains which are known to affect intervention (in this instance PROM) adoption and implementation. National coverage was achieved with survey responses received from all UK adult allograft HCT centres.
resultsFindings indicated PROMs use in UK HCT services is ad hoc with PROMs mostly used as screening or diagnostic tools for emotional health or for service improvement activities including audits. HCPs reported that patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection is limited by a lack of resource, infrastructure and referral pathways if the PROM were to flag a patient issue. A large proportion of HCPs (> 70%) noted that PRO data within their centre would be best enabled through dedicated research staff and data management infrastructure to support data collection and storage. Despite growing evidence of the utility of electronic data capture, most HCPs (> 50%) believed electronic PROMs (ePROMs) may be difficult to implement due to data protection issues and limited access to electronic devices.
conclusionsThese findings highlight the opportunities and challenges to PRO data collection in UK HCT services and demonstrate the need for practical solutions. The development of a standardised approach to PROM use among HCT recipients and investment in workforce and data management infrastructure is needed to support an integrated approach to PRO data collection, storage and use.
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.