ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2026
From participatory design to clinical routine: new concepts for visualizing patient-reported outcomes in breast cancer care.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) improve cancer care by enabling structured self-assessment of disease-related symptoms, overall functioning, and health-related quality of life. Despite proven benefits, routine use is still limited, in part due to suboptimal data visualization. METHODOLOGY: In a sub-study of the multicenter PRO B trial (52 centers, 924 patients with metastatic breast cancer), an interdisciplinary team of clinicians, researchers, patient representatives, and service designers co-developed user-centered PRO visualizations. Drawing on a literature review, an analysis of existing tools, and iterative mock-up development, the team generated initial design concepts. These concepts were then evaluated in semi-structured interviews with eight patients and five providers to assess clarity, emotional impact, usability, and potential for implementation. The interview data were analyzed thematically using a mixed deductive-inductive approach.
resultsEight key themes emerged: axis labeling, color schemes, background lines, alert representation, reference data, missing data, format/additional information, and practical application. Preferences included clear labels, consistent directionality, and simple alert markers. Color views diverged: traffic-light schemes were intuitive to some, but evoked negative reactions; blue gradients were perceived as neutral. Reference data aided context for some but discouraged others, supporting optional display. Missing values required consistent marking. Patients preferred access via both paper and customizable digital tools.
conclusionsCo-designed, user-centered visualizations enhance PRO interpretability, emotional acceptability, and clinical utility. Implementing these recommendations can strengthen communication, support shared decision-making, and promote patient-centered cancer care.
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.