Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41252071›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025

Exploring patient-reported outcomes to assess progress in inpatient low vision rehabilitation.

E P J van Munster, A B M Schilderman, R M A van Nispen, A A J Roelofs, A M Bootsma, H P A van der Aa

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 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. 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

6 authors.

E P J van MunsterAmsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Ophthalmology, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. e.vanmunster@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9250-055X
A B M SchildermanRoyal Dutch Visio, Het Loo Erf, Centre of Expertise and Inpatient Rehabilitation for Blind and Partially Sighted People, Waldeck-Pyrmontstraat 31, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands.
R M A van NispenAmsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Ophthalmology, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
A A J RoelofsRoyal Dutch Visio, Het Loo Erf, Centre of Expertise and Inpatient Rehabilitation for Blind and Partially Sighted People, Waldeck-Pyrmontstraat 31, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands.
A M BootsmaRoyal Dutch Visio, Het Loo Erf, Centre of Expertise and Inpatient Rehabilitation for Blind and Partially Sighted People, Waldeck-Pyrmontstraat 31, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands.
H P A van der AaAmsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Ophthalmology, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Visio Foundation Giften2020/SFvD
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo date, (cost-)effectiveness of multidisciplinary inpatient low vision rehabilitation (ILVR) programs is unknown and adequate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are lacking. The purpose of this exploratory study was to identify relevant patient-reported outcomes (PROs) within ILVR, personal, contextual and procedural factors affecting ILVR outcomes, and PROMs implementation preferences. METHODOLOGY: Semi-structured interviews were conducted among adults with vision impairment (VI) who follow(ed) an ILVR program between January 2020 and January 2022 (n = 19). Healthcare providers of each professional group were interviewed as well (n = 10). Tailored interview guides were used to explore PROMs in ILVR from an early development stage. Interview data was sorted into categories of relevant PROs, personal, contextual and procedural factors, and implementation suggestions.

resultsParticipants indicated seven potential PROs: mindset, knowledge and strategies, practical skills, self-reliance, social participation, relationships and personal development. Personal, contextual and procedural factors affecting these PROs were related to patient characteristics, coping mechanisms, social support, rehabilitation circumstances, quality of care and transfer to the home environment. Implementation suggestions such as modes of administration, frequency, burden and customization were discussed.

conclusionsThis exploratory study provides the first step toward future development and implementation of PROMs in ILVR. Further establishment of a set of PROMS requires an extensive process of matching the themes with accurate PROMs, in which it seems generic and specific PROMs for individuals with VI can be effectively combined. Moreover, the accessibility and the burden on patients and healthcare providers should be taken into account, for example by using different modes of administration and computer adaptive testing.

Indexed as

InpatientsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresVision, LowAdultAgedFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative Research(cost-) effectivenessInpatient low vision rehabilitationLow visionPatient-reported outcomesVision impairment

Identifiers

PMID41252071
PMCPMC12627308

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.