Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39908539›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Improving the Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measure in Clinical Practice: Tackling Current Challenges With Innovative Digital Communication Technologies.

Kelly M de Ligt, Saar Hommes, Ruben D Vromans, Eva Boomstra, Lonneke V van de Poll, Emiel J Krahmer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Factors associated with response to patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review of systematic and scoping reviews, and meta-analyses.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kelly M de LigtDepartment of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9218-617X
Saar HommesDepartment Communication and Cognition, Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6473-5570
Ruben D VromansDepartment Communication and Cognition, Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8040-1207
Eva BoomstraDepartment of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4937-1656
Lonneke V van de PollDepartment of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0413-6872
Emiel J KrahmerDepartment Communication and Cognition, Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6304-7549

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical practice is challenging. We believe effective communication is key to realizing the clinical benefits of PROMs. Communication processes for PROMs in clinical practice typically involve (1) health care professionals (HCPs) inviting patients to complete PROMs, (2) patients completing PROMs, (3) HCPs and patients interpreting the resulting patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and (4) HCPs and patients using PROs for health management. Yet, communication around PROMs remains underexplored. Importantly, patients differ in their skills, knowledge, preferences, and motivations for completing PROMs, as well as in their ability and willingness to interpret and apply PROs in managing their health. Despite this, current communication practices often fail to account for these differences. This paper highlights the importance of personalized communication to make PROMs accessible to diverse populations. Personalizing communication manually is highly labor-intensive, but several digital technologies can offer a feasible solution to accommodate various patients. Despite their potential, these technologies have not yet been applied to PROMs. We explore how existing principles and tools, such as automatic data-to-text generation (including multimodal outputs like text combined with data visualizations) and conversational agents, can enable personalized communication of PROMs in practice.

Indexed as

CommunicationDigital TechnologyPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresHumansclinical practice: patient reported outcomescommunicationdelivery of health caredigital communicationdigital sciencesdigital technologieshealth communicationhealth managementpatient reported outcomepatient reported outcome measuresquality of life

Identifiers

PMID39908539
PMCPMC11840367

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.