The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: lack of impact or lack of theory?
Open accessAbstract
This paper applies a theory-driven approach to explore why the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in clinical practice, in particular, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments, has little or no apparent influence on clinical decision making. A theory-driven approach involves combining knowledge of whether and how an intervention works. It is argued that such an approach is currently lacking within the literature evaluating the effectiveness of feeding back HRQoL information to clinicians. The paper identifies a number of mechanisms that might give rise to the expected outcomes that are currently implicit within the design of the intervention and hypotheses specified within the trials evaluating the use of HRQoL measures in clinical practice. It then examines how far current clinical practice matches these mechanisms and in doing so, a number of possible explanations for the lack of impact of HRQoL on clinical decision making are reviewed. The influence of HRQoL information on clinical decision making depends on a large number of factors related to the design of the intervention, patients' and clinicians' desire to discuss HRQoL issues within the consultation and the legitimacy that clinicians give to HRQoL instruments. To date, knowledge of how the feedback of HRQoL information to clinicians might improve doctor-patient communication or clinical decision making has yet to sufficiently inform an assessment of whether these aspects of patient care are improved. The paper concludes by specifying how the feedback of HRQoL information to clinicians might be modified to maximise its impact on clinical decision making.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors.
Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.47.9.1102 · Cited by 8,596
From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care
Grol, R., & Grimshaw, J. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14546-1 · Cited by 4,531
Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., Brown, P. M., Lynch, P., Brown, J. M., & Selby, P. J. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2004.06.078 · Cited by 1,382
Detmar, S. B., Muller, M. J., Schornagel, J. H., Wever, L. D. V., & Aaronson, N. K. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.23.3027 · Cited by 1,011
Cited by
Coproduction of healthcare service
Batalden, M., Batalden, P., Margolis, P., Seid, M., Armstrong, G., Opipari-Arrigan, L., & Hartung, H. (2016) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004315 · Cited by 1,078
Valderas, J. M., Kotzeva, A., Espallargues, M., Guyatt, G., Ferrans, C. E., Halyard, M. Y., Revicki, D. A., Symonds, T., Parada, A., & Alonso, J. (2008) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9295-0 · Cited by 775
Impact of patient‐reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review
Marshall, S., Haywood, K., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2006) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00650.x · Cited by 602
Outcome measures in chronic low back pain
Maughan, E. F., & Lewis, J. S. (2010) · European Spine Journal · doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1353-6 · Cited by 438
Advances in Patient Reported Outcomes: The NIH PROMIS Measures
Broderick, J., DeWit, E. M., Rothrock, N., Crane, P., & Forrest, C. B. (2013) · eGEMs (Generating Evidence & Methods to improve patient outcomes) · doi:10.13063/2327-9214.1015 · Cited by 244
Cartwright, M., Hirani, S. P., Rixon, L., Beynon, M., Doll, H., Bower, P., Bardsley, M., Steventon, A., Knapp, M., Henderson, C., et al. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.f653 · Cited by 240
Patient and Public Involvement in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Evolution Not Revolution
Staniszewska, S., Haywood, K. L., Brett, J., & Tutton, L. (2012) · The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research · doi:10.2165/11597150-000000000-00000 · Cited by 196
Association between unmet needs and quality of life of cancer patients: A population-based study
Hansen, D. G., Larsen, P. V., Holm, L. V., Rottmann, N., Bergholdt, S. H., & Søndergaard, J. (2013) · Acta Oncologica · doi:10.3109/0284186x.2012.742204 · Cited by 147
Development of a Short Version of MSQOL-54 Using Factor Analysis and Item Response Theory
Rosato, R., Testa, S., Bertolotto, A., Confalonieri, P., Patti, F., Lugaresi, A., Grasso, M. G., Toscano, A., Giordano, A., & Solari, A. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153466 · Cited by 46
Patient‐reported outcome II: selecting appropriate measures for musculoskeletal care
Haywood, K. L. (2007) · Musculoskeletal Care · doi:10.1002/msc.101 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Greenhalgh, J., Long, A. F., & Flynn, R.
- Venue
- Social Science & Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2005-02
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 833-843
- ISSN
- 0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2066797995
- Cited by
- 436
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 22.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
