ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025
Expert consensus on implementing patient-reported outcomes in telehealth: findings from an international Delphi study.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUsing Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) in clinical care can reduce healthcare service utilization by improving the quality of care. Telehealth, defined by WHO, as the use of "telecommunications and virtual technology to deliver healthcare outside of traditional healthcare facilities", can facilitate a dynamic dialogue between patients and healthcare providers for timely interventions. With the increased use of telehealth facilitated by the infrastructure development during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an opportunity to utilize telehealth for PRO implementation and a need for guidelines for using PROs via telehealth. This study aimed to generate expert consensus on the utilization of PROs in telehealth.
methodsDelphi methodology was used to achieve consensus among international experts with a predetermined consensus threshold of 70%. Experts were mainly identified through the ISOQOL Clinical Practice SIG. Surveys asked a combination of structured and open-ended questions about the conceptualization of PROs in telehealth, its applicability, target population, implementation challenges and successful strategies, evaluation approaches, and the essential stakeholders. Data from each round were iteratively analyzed using descriptive statistics (quantitative data) and content analysis (qualitative data).
resultsOut of 24 invitations sent, 17 completed the first round, and 11 completed all three rounds. Respondents were equally distributed between clinicians and researchers and 70% had used PROs via telehealth before the pandemic. Consensus was achieved and some of the relevant aspects are monitoring patients for applicability; individuals with chronic diseases as the target population; resources, staff buy-in, and clinical workflow as the implementation challenges and strategies; utilization metrics for evaluation; and clinicians and patients as essential stakeholders. Though consensus was not reached for the conceptualization of PROs using telehealth, the modified FDA definition of telehealth with the addition of its purpose, and the mode of administration was the most acceptable version. See attached table.
conclusionThe expert consensus achieved provides important insights from an international perspective on how PROs are currently used via telehealth and the needed implementation support to advance their expansion in research and practice. Lack of consensus on the definition of PROs in telehealth signals the continued rapid evolution of their use and the need for additional research.
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.