ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2025
Feasibility of implementing a codesigned patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) collection system for older adults in acute and sub-acute hospital settings.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo test the feasibility of a co-designed PROMs collection system for hospitalised older adults.
methodsA mixed-methods feasibility study was conducted sequentially across one acute and one sub-acute ward, over a 12-week period. Patients aged ≥ 60 years who discharged from hospital were eligible. The EQ-5D-5L with added items on fatigue and cognition was administered on discharge and at 3-6 months post-discharge. Administration was by either a research assistant or volunteer using a variety of modes (tablet computer, phone, SMS). Feasibility was evaluated using a feasibility framework to capture demand, implementation, practicality, and acceptability. Descriptive statistics were applied. Interviews were conducted with volunteers and analysed using deductive content analysis.
resultsCompletion rates indicated high demand (discharge = 84%, n = 110/131; follow-up = 81%, n = 90/110). At discharge, most completed PROMs on the tablet (57%) and 9% were administered by a volunteer. Most required assistance using the tablet (67%) and the average time to administer PROMs was longest for the tablet (17.9 min, SD = 3.3), followed by phone (8.8 min, SD = 4.4) and SMS (1.3 min, SD = 0.5). Fewer participants reported acceptability with using the tablet (61%) compared to SMS (100%). At follow-up, most completed PROMs on the phone (82%) and the average time to administer PROMs was less than discharge (4.9 vs. 13.4 min). Volunteers reported administering PROMs to unwell patients was challenging.
conclusionA co-designed PROMs collection system demonstrated feasibility in hospitalised older adults with phone and SMS having greatest acceptability. Administration of PROMs by volunteers was not feasible.
trial registrationACTRN12623000576628. Registered 25 May 2023.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40019679What 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.