ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026
Qualitative study of patient-reported outcome data collection among clinicians in dermatology at a single academic center.
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. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePatient-reported outcomes (PROs) help dermatologists better understand patient perspectives to facilitate shared medical decision-making. Despite merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS) measure to collect quality of life assessments at least once every 12 months for patients with chronic skin diseases, routine PRO collection remains uncommon in clinical practice. This semi-structured interview study aimed to elicit key preferences, facilitators, and barriers for routine PRO collection in dermatology practices.
methodsClinicians were recruited from Emory Dermatology, which has implemented routine PRO collection. Verbatim transcripts were coded and analyzed deductively using the Theoretical Domains Framework to generate salient themes. We interviewed nine dermatologists and one advanced practice provider (APP).
resultsProfessional roles of all interviewed clinicians aligned with PRO collection. Memory, attention, and decision-making requirements for PRO collection by clinicians were minimized via institutional automation in the electronic health record (EHR). Skills in navigating EHR were needed to retrieve PRO data. Environmental factors affecting PRO collection included patient portal access, IT support for EHR integration, institutional interest in PROs, limited clinician oversight on PRO collection by other staff members, and high patient volume in dermatology clinics. Social support between staff could allow workflow division and maximized opportunities for PRO collection, while clinician perceived patient survey fatigue and skepticism on PRO utility affected PRO collection. This study was limited to clinician perspectives in a single clinic.
conclusionAutomating PRO collection and utilization in EHR, demonstrating PRO value, establishing institutional support, and streamlining workflow are needed to broadly implement routine PRO data collection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42070166What 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.