ArticleJournal of patient experience2024
Application of the PAPERS Grading Criteria Within a Rapid Evidence Review to Determine the Psychometric and Pragmatic Properties of Patient Empowerment Tools.
Article in Journal of patient experience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reflection on a professional advisory group to inform the use of patient empowerment tools within an implementation science research project.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Self-management of long-term conditions requires health professionals to understand and develop capabilities that empower the population they serve. A rapid evidence review was undertaken to assess the current evidence based on the psychometric properties of patient empowerment tools. MEDLINE was searched, and data were extracted for each publication and scored using a modified Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS) evidence rating scale. The results were grouped into the following domains: (a) health literacy; (b) patient activation; (c) long-term conditions; (d) self-management needs and behaviors. A full-text review of 65 publications led to the inclusion of 29 primary studies. The highest scoring tools were selected with respect to performance for each domain: (a) Newest Vital Sign and the Brief Health Literacy Screen; (b) Consumer Health Activation Index and PAM-13; (c) LTCQ and LTCQ8; and (d) SEMCD and Patient Enablement Instrument. PAPERS was a useful tool in determining the generalizability, validity, and reliability of these patient empowerment tools. However, further research is required to establish whether an individual's health literacy status influences patient empowerment tool outcomes.
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.