ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2026
PROMs: Patient related or patient centred? A bridge between Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and clinical ethics in the context of a cohort of gynaeco-oncological patients analysed by qualitative semi- structured interviews.
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. 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.
- Integrating Patient-Reported Outcomes into Clinical Pathways in Atrial Fibrillation: A Framework Aligned with the AF-CARE Model.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely used in oncologic care, yet it remains unclear to what extent they capture the depth and contextual meaning of patient experience in gynecologic oncology.
objectiveTo explore gynecologic oncology patients’ narratives of treatment experience, needs, and psychosocial impacts, and to examine how these narratives align with domains covered by commonly used PROMs.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 20 female participants (31–72 years) across different therapy phases. Interviews were analysed using a constructivist grounded theory approach, including iterative inductive coding and constant comparison. After the inductive category structure stabilized, we conducted a secondary mapping of interview-derived categories to domains represented in commonly used PROM instruments in gynecologic and breast oncology.
resultsParticipants described treatment effects not only as physical symptoms and functional limitations, but as experiences embedded in identity, autonomy, coping, and relational roles. While PROM domains broadly covered major areas such as physical symptoms, psychological wellbeing, social functioning, body image, and sexual health, the interview narratives repeatedly emphasized meaning, context, and interpersonal dynamics that were insufficiently represented within standardized PROM structures.
conclusionPROMs are a valuable component of oncologic care and efficiently capture selected domains of patient experience. However, our findings indicate that routinely used PROMs in gynecologic oncology may not adequately capture the depth, context, and meaning of patients’ narratives, particularly regarding identity, relational dynamics, and coping. Integrating PROMs with qualitative approaches may better support individualized, patient-centred care in the context of personalized and precision oncology.
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.