ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Optimizing patient-reported sociodemographic measures in health care - a national example of the development and evaluation of a practical standardized instrument for collecting patient data in studies.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe development of patient-oriented health care is continuous subject to old and new challenges. To better identify patient needs, studies are necessary and standardized data collection is essential to describe, analyze and compare data. Associated demographic variables remain a topic of discussion in health services research. Common approaches either differ in relevant sociodemographic aspects, or their standardization is too detailed to be feasibly used in studies with a clinical or health services research focus. Our aim was to develop and evaluate a comprehensive and practical instrument for collecting sociodemographic patient data in studies.
methodsA variant (interdisciplinary expert panel) of the nominal group technique was used as a consensus method, in addition, a focus group was held and a 2-phase pretest according to Prüfer and Rexroth (method: "Think Aloud") was used for evaluation. In the first phase we conducted 6 interviews with potential patients. The main phase was planned to enroll at least 200 patients to test the instrument with a quantitative sample as recommended for testing patient-reported outcome measures. It took place in eight departments of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf. Exploratory analyses were conducted using SPSS. The interdisciplinary expert panel revised the instrument.
resultsIn the main phase, 290 (51%) of 574 approached patients participated [median (minimum; maximum) age: 40 (19; 86) years; 55% female]. Of these respondents 66%/ 31%/ 3% considered the length of the questionnaire to be appropriate/ too long/ too short; 96% found it understandable. Seven questions on living and income situation (commented at least three times) showed a need for clarification and modification. Non-responders optionally provided reasons for decline of which 7 clusters could be formed (predominantly: time). Final standardized variables: biological sex; year/country of birth; marital status/biological children; living/household type/persons/age; highest school/ qualification/current profession; household income/specialties/persons; country of birth mother/father; nationalities/residence status/native languages/German skills.
conclusionsPatient involvement is helpful in the development of patient survey instruments. Our instrument is based on the patients' perspective and understanding of these measurements. The aim is to further strengthen patient-centered health care. The revised instrument will be used in studies. The expert group will continue to identify and implement socio-demographic developments.
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.