ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026
Making sense of PROM outcomes: a mixed method study to optimize graphical visualization formats for children.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a Core Patient-Reported Outcome (Measures) Set for Pediatric Physical Therapy.Pediatric physical therapy : the official publication of the Section on Pediatrics of the American Physical Therapy Association · 2026Article
- Designing oncology-specific patient-reported outcome dashboards: end-user preferences for reference curve inclusion and visualization in pediatric cancer care.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveGraphs are often used to increase patient understanding of Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) scores. We aimed to investigate which graph visualization options are best interpreted by children.
methodsWe conducted a quantitative study to assess children’s interpretation accuracy and perceived clarity of different PROM visualizations graphs through a test, and a qualitative study using ‘think aloud’ interviews about the same visualizations to explore how different visual elements were used for interpretation. Participants included (1) children from the Dutch general population (quantitative) and (2) children (8-18y) treated at Emma Children’s Hospital (quantitative and qualitative).We created sample graphs (e.g. bar, line) based on literature, varied graphical elements (e.g. addition of numerical information yes/no), and presented them in randomized order. Logistic and linear mixed models analyzed interpretation accuracy and clarity ratings. We analyzed interviews with a deductive approach.
resultsWe included 558 children in the quantitative study (1: 546, 2: 12), and 14 in the interviews. Foundational elements like clear labeling were found beneficial. ‘Heatmap’ and ‘color’ as indicators of concerning scores had higher interpretation accuracy and clarity, and SD-lines lower. Bar graphs had slightly higher accuracy. Radar graphs scored significantly worse on interpretation accuracy and clarity compared to all other graphs. Interviews revealed a preference for single domain graphs with color-coding indicating concerning scores.
conclusionWe recommend using bar graphs incorporating heatmaps or color as concerning score indicators in clinical encounters with children. Application of our results will likely facilitate patient engagement in consultations and potentially improve patient-centered 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.