ReviewNursing open2026
A Survey on the Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Patient-Reported Outcomes Among 527 Nursing Staff in China.
Review in Nursing open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the key factors influencing nursing staff's knowledge and attitudes towards patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in Chinese tertiary hospitals, and to examine the demographic and professional determinants of these perceptions, thereby providing a foundation for strategies to enhance engagement and promote the comprehensive implementation of PROs.
methodsThis study employed a cross-sectional design to survey 527 nursing staff from four tertiary hospitals in China using general information, self-designed knowledge understanding and demand questionnaires, and Liu Huan's localised Outcome Measures Questionnaire (OMQ). Multiple linear regression analysis was employed to analyse the influencing nursing staff's attitudes towards patient-reported outcomes (PROs).
resultsThe preferred methods of acquiring and wanting to understand were through reading literature (223 people, 42.36%) and academic conferences (186 people, 35.27%). The content of interest included the usage of measurement tools (382 people, 72.48%) and application (424 people, 80.51%). The total OMQ score was 64.12 ± 0.92, with an average item score of 2.96 ± 0.21. There were significant differences in attitudes scores among educational levels, departments, understanding and nursing capabilities. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that educational level were influencing factors for the total OMQ score and the practice barriers section of the questionnaire (p < 0.05), while understanding, age and title were influencing factors for the negative attitudes section of the OMQ (p < 0.05).
conclusionNursing staff in tertiary hospitals recognise the value of patient-reported outcomes, have a strong willingness to learn related content, and also harbour some negative attitudes. Measures can be taken against these influencing factors to enhance knowledge and attitudes, thus actively applying them in clinical practice.
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.