ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Respondent fatigue in clinical practice: exploring the challenges of increasing PROMS and PREMS utilization in a tertiary hospital.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 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
backgroundThe growing adoption of patient-reported measures (PRMs) in routine clinical practice has raised concerns about 'respondent fatigue', which leads patients to not complete questionnaires. Respondent fatigue poses risks not only for patient follow-up but also for data quality and overall experience. The aim is to evaluate the frequency of patients receiving PRMs potentially leading to respondent fatigue, considering both patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a tertiary Spanish hospital. Based on all questionnaires sent to patients in 2022, we quantified risk-inducing situations that could influence respondent fatigue in routine clinical practice.
methodsThe analysis included all adult patients attending the hospital in 2022. Information systems data were used to estimate the frequency of patient visits across various healthcare settings. The analysis assessed the frequency of annual multiple encounters, involving a selected set of 8 clinical conditions and 2 programs, mirroring real-world uses of PREMs and PROMs in both inpatient and outpatient care. By integrating both datasets, we evaluated the probability of co-occurrence and potential overlap between clinical conditions and/or healthcare settings requiring the administration of patient reported measures.
resultsThis study revealed a significantly high frequency of patient contacts for PRM collection, totalling 322,039 interactions in 2022, with an average of 2.81 contacts per year per PRMs collection. Among nearly 50,000 patients with four or more healthcare interactions, the average number of PRM collection contacts reached 8,03. For selected programs involving PROM collection, 25,016 patients enrolled in a single program had an average of 2.49 contacts per year, while 4,068 and 519 patients enrolled in two or more than three programs experienced averages of 4.46 and 6.52 contacts, respectively. These results highlight the burden of frequent PRM collection and the associated risk of respondent fatigue. These findings emphasize the cumulative burden of PRM collection and highlight the associated risk of respondent fatigue.
conclusionsThese results emphasize the challenges posed by the frequency and integration of PRMs in usual clinical practice in healthcare settings, urging strategies to improve patient experience and prevent data quality loss/reduce respondent fatigue.
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.