ArticleBMC health services research2026
Usability and added value of the Value@WORK-Q23: insights from user testing of a standard set of key work-related outcomes for patients with cardiovascular diseases in real-life consultations.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study explored the usability and added value of the Value@WORK-Q23 (V@W-Q23) in real-life consultations with working-age patients diagnosed with cardiovascular diseases (CVD), examining the experiences with the usability and added value by both patients and healthcare professionals and identifying potential barriers and facilitators to its use.
methodsAn exploratory mixed-methods design was employed, evaluating the usability and added value when testing the V@W-Q23 in real-life consultations. The V@W-Q23 was tested in three steps: (1) the patient completing the V@W-Q23 independently before the consultation, (2) the healthcare professional reviewing the results, and (3) using the insights during the consultation. These user tests took place in consultations across four healthcare settings: occupational medicine, social insurance medicine, general practice, and cardiology. Nationwide purposive sampling was used. Data collection included observation of consultations and semi-structured interviews with both the participating patients and healthcare professionals. Quantitative data were analysed using frequencies and percentages; qualitative data underwent content analysis.
resultsThe usability of the V@W-Q23 was tested in 16 consultations involving 12 healthcare professionals and 15 patients. The V@W-Q23 was primarily used to discuss items of interest to the patient or those deviating from the professional’s expectations. Both patients and professionals found the items relevant, easy to understand, and manageable within limited time. The tool enhanced understanding of personal circumstances, increased attention to work-related topics, and improved interpersonal communication. Its added value was particularly notable for patients on temporary sick leave or those facing work-related challenges. Barriers included limited time, competing priorities, and unclear roles in work-focused healthcare. Facilitators included repeat measurements, a more appealing layout, clearer responsibilities for sending, receiving, and processing the V@W-Q23, and integration into electronic health records. The tool was also suggested for use in other chronic conditions.
conclusionsThe V@W-Q23 was well-received by both patients and healthcare professionals, promoting in-depth discussions about work-related issues during consultations. Its use improved understanding and attention to work-related factors, highlighting the potential for broader application in healthcare settings.
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.