ReviewJournal of general internal medicine2020
Selecting Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to Contribute to Primary Care Performance Measurement: a Mixed Methods Approach.
Review in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Performance measurement systems in primary health care: a systematic literature review.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Using intersectionality to inform fit-for-purpose patient-reported outcome measure development: a qualitative interview study.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- Bridging Perspectives: Guiding the Selection of Patient-Centered Outcomes in Rehabilitation Learning Health Systems.Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Primary Care Patient Engagement With Patient-Reported Outcomes to Assess Osteoarthritis Symptoms.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Perceptions of patient-reported outcome data access and sharing among patients with heart failure: ethical implications for research.European journal of cardiovascular nursing · 2024Article
- Multilingual Framework for Risk Assessment and Symptom Tracking (MRAST).Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Performance Measures in Alternative Payment Models: Current Use, Implementation Barriers, and Principles to Succeed.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2024Review
- Patient-Centered Care for Patients with Depression or Anxiety Disorder: An Integrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Article
- The content and processes of patient-derived quality of care indicators for people living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTC): A scoping review.Journal of multimorbidity and comorbidityReview
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
New models of primary care include patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to promote patient-centered care. PROMs provide information on patient functional status and well-being, can be used to enhance care quality, and are proposed for use in assessing performance. Our objective was to identify a short list of candidate PROMs for use in primary care practice and to serve as a basis for performance measures (PMs). We used qualitative and quantitative methods to identify relevant patient-reported outcome (PRO) domains for use in performance measurement (PRO-PM) and their associated PROMs. We collected data from key informant groups: patients (n = 13; one-on-one and group interviews; concept saturation analysis), clinical thought leaders (n = 9; group discussions; thematic analysis), primary care practices representatives (n = 37; six focus groups; thematic analysis), and primary care payer representatives (n = 10; 12-question survey; frequencies of responses). We merged the key informant group information with findings from environmental literature scans. We conducted a targeted evidence review of measurement properties for candidate PROMs. We used a scoping review and key informant groups to identify PROM evaluation criteria, which were linked to the National Quality Forum measure evaluation criteria. We developed a de novo schema to score candidate PROMs against our criteria. We identified four PRO domains and 10 candidate PROMs: 3 for depressive symptoms, 2 for physical function, 3 for self-efficacy, 2 for ability to participate. Five PROMs met ≥ 70% of the evidence criteria for three PRO domains: PHQ-9 or PROMIS Depression (depression), PF-10 or PROMIS-PF (physical functioning), and PROMIS Self-Efficacy for Managing Treatments and Medications (self-efficacy). The PROMIS Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities met 68% of our criteria and might be considered for inclusion. Existing evidence and key informant data identified 5 candidate PROMs to use in primary care. These instruments can be used to develop PRO-PMs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.