ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2026
A mixed methods study on patients' and healthcare professionals' understanding of the graphical presentation of patient-reported outcome data at an inpatient unit for psychosomatic medicine.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient involvement is a key goal in modern healthcare, and quality of care improves with effective information flow between patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential in patient-centered care. Electronic PRO monitoring (ePROM) involves collecting, analyzing, and documenting patient self-ratings, enabling treatment monitoring, screening, quality assurance, and research. The aim of this study was to investigate patients’ and HCPs’ understanding of the graphical presentation of longitudinal ePROM bar charts and the patients’ perspective on various modes of access to such data (e.g. paper reports, electronic formats, or HCP consultations).
methodsSemi-structured interviews with 40 patients and 13 HCPs involved presenting longitudinal ePROM bar charts. Participants answered questions about changes and current states of four constructs (disease understanding, treatment effectiveness, depression, anxiety). They also interpreted the graphs and answered questions regarding report preferences, pros and cons of different report types, preferred assessment frequency, reactions to problems (e.g., red graph), and support requests for problematic results.
resultsResults showed that 80% of patients correctly interpreted the graphs (9/12 questions), with only one patient answering fewer than 50% correctly. 84.7% of HCPs answered at least 15/16 questions correctly. A significant association was found between patients’ understanding of ePROM results and their educational level. Most patients preferred receiving their ePROM reports through personal meetings with a written report for memory support.
conclusionBoth patients in psychosomatic medicine wards and HCPs demonstrated a high level of understanding of ePROM results, with patients' educational levels influencing accuracy. Patients strongly preferred receiving ePROM reports through personal contact, suggesting that future studies should explore the effects of this report method.
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.