Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41652056›Full record

ArticleThe patient2026

What Is Important to Patients? A Mixed Methods Study to Understand Patient Experience Commonalities Across Three Conditions.

Kayleigh R Majercak, Eleanor M Perfetto, C Daniel Mullins

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Kayleigh R MajercakSchool of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA. kmajercak@umaryland.edu.ORCID 0009-0000-4865-2049
Eleanor M PerfettoSchool of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA.
C Daniel MullinsSchool of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4322-2490

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objective of this study was to identify if commonalities exist across conditions on the way different conditions and their treatments impact patient health and daily life.

methodsQualitative data were collected using in-depth interviews to identify patient experiences with asthma, colorectal cancer, and multiple sclerosis. Patient-organization partners supported recruitment efforts. Virtual, 1-h concept elicitation interviews were conducted with US adults in November to December 2022. Interviews included open-ended questions, using a semi-structured guide adapted from the National Health Council's Map My Experience Toolbox. In addition, in a final interview question, participants rated a list of common impacts derived from review and analysis of existing Voice-of-the-Patient (VoP) reports as "important/not important." Patient data were aggregated to identify cross-cutting impacts meeting a threshold (i.e., 16 of 24 patients reported) or if reported as most bothersome. Resulting impacts were confirmed through review with partner patient organizations. Follow-up interviews were conducted with a subset of participants to identify aspects of the impact that make it important as well as to prioritize and rate the list of impacts.

resultsA total of 24 adults were interviewed; n = 8 per condition. Common symptoms (% of patients reporting) across conditions included: emotional health/anxiety/depression (95.8%), fatigue (83.3%), pain/discomfort (54.2%), nausea/vomiting (50.0%), gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (45.8%), cognitive health (45.8%), and sleep disturbance (41.7%). Common function-related impacts (% of patients reporting) included: physical mobility (83.3%), activities of daily living (79.2%), work life (75.0%), emotional burden of disease (66.7%), and lifestyle changes (62.5%). Condition-specific impacts included symptoms such as cough for asthma, chronic sensory/sensitivity dysfunction symptoms for colorectal cancer, and neuromuscular symptoms for multiple sclerosis. For the final interview question, most patients rated the VoP-generated impact list as "important," which sometimes conflicted with the concept elicitation interview findings. For example, pain/discomfort was reported by 54.2% of patients from the concept elicitation interviews versus 73.9% of patients rating the VoP list. Additional probing and prioritization of cross-cutting impacts were based on follow-up interviews, (n = 12) resulting in a prioritized list of "direct" impacts (n = 8) and "probing" impacts (n = 18). Patients reported intensity and impact on function as the most important aspects or attributes of the symptom-related impacts, and difficulty and missed days/ability to continue working were reported as the most important aspects for the function-related impacts.

conclusionsAcross three medical conditions, a preliminary set of cross-cutting "most important" impacts was identified, which could be used to help inform standardization of patient experience data (PED) collection. As expected, condition-specific impacts emerged that did not align across conditions; they should be considered in the collection of patient experience data, as they are important to patients with that condition and reflect that there are disease-specific nuances beyond the cross-cutting set.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingAsthmaColorectal NeoplasmsMultiple SclerosisHealth StatusHumansPatient PreferenceQualitative ResearchStress, Psychological

Identifiers

PMID41652056
PMCPMC13124791

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.