ArticleBMJ open2025
Patient perspectives on the usability and content validity of the assessment of burden of chronic conditions tool for post-COVID in the Netherlands: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC-) tool: A valid and reliable tool for hip, knee, hand, wrist, foot and ankle osteoarthritis.Osteoarthritis and cartilage open · 2025Article
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
backgroundPost-COVID syndrome manifests with a diverse array of symptoms for which no standard care plan currently exists. Many questions were raised by patients, which underscored the need for a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). Therefore, a post-COVID module was developed to be included in the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC-) tool. The ABCC-tool evaluates and visualises the perceived physical, emotional and social burden of one or multiple chronic disease(s) using a balloon diagram and aims to facilitate person-centred care and structured discussions between patients and healthcare professionals. This study explores the patients' perspective on the content of the ABCC-tool for post-COVID and the tool's usability in a home-based setting.
methodsAll patients who completed the ABCC-tool for post-COVID were invited for an online semi-structured interview. We selected post-COVID patients who had used the tool in the past three months. Interviews were audio recorded and analysed using a thematic approach with Atlas.ti version 23.
resultsNineteen post-COVID patients (10 males, mean age 56) were interviewed between May and August 2024. The tool was regarded as user-friendly, and patients indicated they would use the tool again in the future. Patients valued the tool's broad range of topics, some of which are often overlooked in standard healthcare consultations. The tool was comprehensible and relevant according to all patients. The balloon diagram was easy to understand, but a legend explaining the colours of the balloons was preferred. Other suggestions for improvement included adding open-text fields and periodic reminders to increase usability and adding long-term data.
conclusionsThe ABCC-tool is a promising instrument for post-COVID patients, offering a structured way to monitor and communicate experienced burden in addition to standard healthcare consultations. Refinements addressing usability and comprehensiveness are recommended to facilitate its integration into clinical practices.
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.