Cited by 775Patient Satisfaction in HealthcarePatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature

Valderas, J. M., Kotzeva, A., Espallargues, M., Guyatt, G., Ferrans, C. E., Halyard, M. Y., Revicki, D. A., Symonds, T. +2 more·2008·Quality of Life Research

Abstract

Objective The purpose of this paper is to summarize the best evidence regarding the impact of providing patient-reported outcomes (PRO) information to health care professionals in daily clinical practice.Methods Systematic review of randomized clinical trials (Medline, Cochrane Library; reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and requests to authors and experts in the field).Results Out of 1,861 identified references published between 1978 and 2007, 34 articles corresponding to 28 original studies proved eligible. Most trials (19) were conducted in primary care settings performed in the USA (21) and assessed adult patients (25). Information provided to professionals included generic health status (10), mental health (14), and other (6). Most studies suffered from methodologic limitations, including analysis that did not correspond with the unit of allocation. In most trials, the impact of PRO was limited. Fifteen of 23 studies (65%) measuring process of care observed at least one significant result favoring the intervention, as did eight of 17 (47%) that measured outcomes of care.Conclusions Methodological concerns limit the strength of inference regarding the impact of providing PRO information to clinicians. Results suggest great heterogeneity of impact; contexts and interventions that will yield important benefits remain to be clearly defined.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11136-007-9295-0

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Valderas, J. M., Kotzeva, A., Espallargues, M., Guyatt, G., Ferrans, C. E., Halyard, M. Y., Revicki, D. A., Symonds, T., Parada, A., & Alonso, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • Mayo Clinic in Arizona (US)
  • Pfizer (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Universitat Pompeu Fabra (ES)
Corresponding author
Alonso, J.
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Published
2008-01-04
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
179-193
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
OpenAlex
W2149103558
Cited by
775
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 80 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 69 · 2018: 53 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 43 · 2014: 55 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 26
FWCI
4.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
patient-reported outcomes, clinician feedback, mental health outcomes, primary care, process of care, health care outcomes, clinician decision-making, methodological limitations
MeSH terms
Feedback, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Quality of Life, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Patient Satisfaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review