Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42250184›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026

Physiotherapist and nurse perspectives on the acceptability and timing of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: Balancing standardisation and flexibility.

Jessica Nikolovski, Marika Franklin, Rachael L Morton, Matilda Armstrong, Gill Hartas, Brad Rossiter, Margaret Fagan, Melissa Tinsley, Jean-Frederic Levesque, Kim Sutherland and 10 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Electronic patient-reported outcome platforms used in hematological cancers: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Jessica NikolovskiFaculty of Medicine and Health, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. jessica.nikolovski@sydney.edu.au.
Marika FranklinFaculty of Medicine and Health, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Rachael L MortonFaculty of Medicine and Health, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Matilda ArmstrongThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a Joint Venture With Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Gill HartasThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a Joint Venture With Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Brad RossiterThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a Joint Venture With Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Margaret FaganThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a Joint Venture With Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Melissa TinsleyAgency for Clinical Innovation, Sydney, Australia.
Jean-Frederic LevesqueAgency for Clinical Innovation, Sydney, Australia.
Kim SutherlandOffice for Health and Medical Research, NSW Ministry of Health, Sydney, Australia.
Rebecca Mercieca-BebberFaculty of Medicine and Health, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Claire SnyderDepartments of Medicine, Oncology, and Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Olalekan Lee AiyegbusiCentre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research (CPROR), Department of Applied Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham , UK.
Rhonda PowerHealthcare Improvement Unit, Quality, Strategy and Improvement, Central Coast Local Health District, Gosford, NSW, Australia.
Thelma De Lisser-HowarthClinical Governance Unit, Northern Sydney Local Health District, St Leonards, Australia.
John Paul TroianiClinical Governance Unit, Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District, Warrawong, Australia.
Jane MaherClinical Governance Unit, Sydney Local Health District, Camperdown, Australia.
Joanne LeonardClinical Governance Unit, Murrumbidgee Local Health District, Wagga, Australia.
Katrina EliasIntegrated and Community Health, Western Sydney Local Health District, Blacktown, Australia.
Claudia RutherfordFaculty of Medicine and Health, Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Sydney Quality of Life Office (SQOLO), University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), when used at the point-of-care, provide a mechanism to systematically integrate patients' voices into shared decision-making. We examined clinicians' perspectives on the acceptability and preferred timing of PROM completion in routine clinical care for respiratory, musculoskeletal, cardiac, kidney and diabetic condition management.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted over videoconference between October 2024 and May 2025. Participants worked at various New South Wales Health clinics, providing care for patients with chronic conditions, and were eligible to collect and review PROMs digitally using the Health Outcomes Patient Experience platform (NSW PRMs-HOPE program). Reflexive thematic analysis was undertaken.

resultsTwenty-two physiotherapists and nurses were interviewed. Acceptability themes included: (1) purpose of PROMs; (2) broader ethical considerations for PROMs collection and use; (3) practical aspects of PROM administration. Findings highlighted the elusiveness of an "ideal" timing for PROMs. Timing themes included: (1) (mis)alignment in timing of PROM administration; (2) preferences for fixed or customised timing and frequency of administration; (3) temporal fit and workflow alignment.

conclusionPROMs were reported as most acceptable when their selection, content, and timing aligned with clinical purpose, scope of practice, and existing workflows. Flexibility in PROM administration was perceived to enhance relevance at the point-of-care and support timely, condition-specific clinical conversations and interventions. However, clinicians also recognised that increased flexibility may reduce the comparability of aggregated PROM data across cohorts, highlighting an inherent acceptability trade-off between meeting individual clinical needs and supporting system-level performance monitoring and benchmarking.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelNursesPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPhysical TherapistsAdultChronic DiseaseFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedNew South WalesQualitative ResearchTime FactorsAcceptabilityChronic conditionsPatient-reported outcome measuresQualitativeTiming

Identifiers

PMID42250184
PMCPMC13242462

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.