Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41024025›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2025

Rooting patient-reported outcomes in clinical care: a scoping review on benefits, challenges, and opportunities for patients and clinicians.

Ipek Ozer Stillman, Brandon Boyle, Karen Lencoski, Meni Styliadou, Jeffrey M Muir, Grammati Sarri

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
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

6 authors.

Ipek Ozer StillmanTakeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Lexington, MA, USA.
Brandon BoyleTakeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Lexington, MA, USA.
Karen LencoskiTakeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Lexington, MA, USA.
Meni StyliadouTakeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Lexington, MA, USA.
Jeffrey M MuirCytel, Inc, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Grammati SarriCytel, Inc, London, UK. grammati.sarri@cytel.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe patient voice in healthcare continues to grow, through the expanded use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and enhanced by the growing use of digital health technologies. Despite these positive signs, widespread adoption of PRO measures (PROM) in healthcare decision-making continues to lag. We conducted a scoping review to identify the current benefits of and roadblocks to the use of PRO data in the patient-clinician interaction.

methodsWe searched the Embase and MEDLINE databases from 2014 to 2024 for articles that discussed the role of PRO data in patient quality of life, clinical care and value assessment decision-making. We also manually searched the websites of nine national health technology assessment agencies and used a snowballing approach to identify additional publications. Eligible publications were mapped to three key topics of interest: benefits/barriers at the patient, clinician, and healthcare service levels.

resultsOur search yielded 1,846 citations; after deduplication and screening, 13 articles were included. At the patient level, benefits included increased care satisfaction and improved patient experience, mainly via enhanced communication. Uncertainty about PROMs and their mechanisms was a main barrier, as were concerns about the variability of clinical application, lack of follow-up, and unfulfilled patient expectations. For clinicians, improved patient symptom clarity, satisfaction with care, and informed decision-making were the main benefits of PROMs, along with improved efficiency during patient visits. The main barrier for physicians was the feasibility of integrating PROMs into daily practice, including establishing the routine use of PROMs, and consistency in the interpretation of PRO data. At the healthcare service level, improvements in efficiency and the identification of unmet needs were benefits, while questions about consistent between-group interpretation were raised, as were questions regarding the basic value of PROMs, as there is currently minimal evidence to indicate that PRO data directly improve care outcomes.

conclusionMuch evidence exists indicating PROMs are associated with improvements in patient-clinician communication and improved satisfaction on both parts, although hesitation regarding their widespread adoption remains. More objective data are needed to further quantify the potential benefits of PROM integration in clinical care in order to assess any direct impact on clinical care outcomes and to facilitate their broader use.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresHumansPatient SatisfactionPhysician-Patient RelationsQuality of LifeBarrierBenefitDecision-makingHealthcarePatient-reported outcomes

Identifiers

PMID41024025
PMCPMC12482245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.