ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Physician and patient perspectives on PROM implementation barriers in spine care and pain management: a mixed-methods assessment.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Loma Linda University Health clinicians' beliefs, knowledge and experiences regarding pain management.BMC health services research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are vital for patient-centred care but face implementation challenges. Within the participating academic medical centre's spine care and pain management clinics, PROMs were collected but underused, indicating a quality gap.
objectiveTo identify and compare physician and patient perspectives on priorities, barriers and preferences for PROM implementation to inform a quality improvement initiative.
methodsWe conducted a mixed-methods evaluation (October 2024-December 2024) in two outpatient clinics. Data included quantitative surveys assessing priorities and challenges from physicians (N=8) and patients (N=35), and qualitative data from physician meeting field notes, patient interaction field notes and open-ended survey responses. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively; qualitative data underwent thematic analysis. Findings were integrated using triangulation.
resultsPhysicians and patients aligned on prioritising pain interference and physical function. However, patients prioritised pain severity and personal goals more highly than physicians. While 70% of patients found PROMs useful, only 24% reported discussing PROM findings with providers, and 75% of clinicians responded 'not at all confident' to a question about score interpretation. Implementation challenges diverged significantly: physicians universally (100%) cited perceived patient time burden as a barrier, but this concern was infrequently shared by patients (11.4%). Physicians also cited workflow integration as a barrier (87.5%), while patients primarily prioritised PROM format/design (37.1%) and relevance (28.6%). Five qualitative themes emerged across patients and physicians: (1) critiques of PROM content/fidelity; (2) disconnect between data collection and clinical integration; (3) prioritising function and patient-centred goals; (4) need for flexibility, customisation and communication and (5) system-level barriers influencing implementation.
conclusionsGaps exist between PROM collection and meaningful clinical use in this setting, driven by content limitations, workflow barriers, system issues and divergent stakeholder perspectives. Improving PROM implementation requires a multistakeholder approach prioritising function-focused, relevant measures integrated effectively into clinical workflows and support by system-level changes.
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.