Cargando…

Visualization formats of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: a systematic review about preferences and interpretation accuracy

PURPOSE: The use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for individual patient management within clinical practice is becoming increasingly important. New evidence about graphic visualization formats for PROMs scores has become available. This systematic literature review evaluated evidence fo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Albers, Elaine A. C., Fraterman, Itske, Walraven, Iris, Wilthagen, Erica, Schagen, Sanne B., van der Ploeg, Iris M., Wouters, Michel W. J. M., van de Poll-Franse, Lonneke V., de Ligt, Kelly M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8894516/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35239055
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-022-00424-3
_version_ 1784662687444107264
author Albers, Elaine A. C.
Fraterman, Itske
Walraven, Iris
Wilthagen, Erica
Schagen, Sanne B.
van der Ploeg, Iris M.
Wouters, Michel W. J. M.
van de Poll-Franse, Lonneke V.
de Ligt, Kelly M.
author_facet Albers, Elaine A. C.
Fraterman, Itske
Walraven, Iris
Wilthagen, Erica
Schagen, Sanne B.
van der Ploeg, Iris M.
Wouters, Michel W. J. M.
van de Poll-Franse, Lonneke V.
de Ligt, Kelly M.
author_sort Albers, Elaine A. C.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for individual patient management within clinical practice is becoming increasingly important. New evidence about graphic visualization formats for PROMs scores has become available. This systematic literature review evaluated evidence for graphic visualization formats of PROMs data in clinical practice for patients and clinicians, for both individual and group level PROMs data. METHODS: Studies published between 2000 and 2020 were extracted from CINAHL, PubMed, PsychInfo, and Medline. Studies included patients ≥ 18 years old in daily clinical practice. Papers not available in English, without full-text access, or that did not specifically describe visualization of PROMs data were excluded. Outcomes were: visualization preferences; interpretation accuracy; guidance for clinical interpretation. RESULTS: Twenty-five out of 789 papers were included for final analysis. Most frequently studied formats were: bar charts, line graphs, and pie charts. Patients preferred bar charts and line graphs as these were easy and quick for retrieving information about their PROMs scores over time. Clinicians’ interpretation accuracy and preferences were similar among graphic visualization formats. Scores were most often compared with patients’ own previous scores; to further guide clinical interpretation, scores were compared to norm population scores. Different ‘add-ons’ improved interpretability for patients and clinicians, e.g. using colors, descriptions of measurement scale directionality, descriptive labels, and brief definitions. CONCLUSION: There was no predominant graphical visualization format approach in terms of preferences or interpretation accuracy for both patients and clinicians. Detailed clarification of graph content is essential. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-022-00424-3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8894516
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88945162022-03-08 Visualization formats of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: a systematic review about preferences and interpretation accuracy Albers, Elaine A. C. Fraterman, Itske Walraven, Iris Wilthagen, Erica Schagen, Sanne B. van der Ploeg, Iris M. Wouters, Michel W. J. M. van de Poll-Franse, Lonneke V. de Ligt, Kelly M. J Patient Rep Outcomes Research PURPOSE: The use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for individual patient management within clinical practice is becoming increasingly important. New evidence about graphic visualization formats for PROMs scores has become available. This systematic literature review evaluated evidence for graphic visualization formats of PROMs data in clinical practice for patients and clinicians, for both individual and group level PROMs data. METHODS: Studies published between 2000 and 2020 were extracted from CINAHL, PubMed, PsychInfo, and Medline. Studies included patients ≥ 18 years old in daily clinical practice. Papers not available in English, without full-text access, or that did not specifically describe visualization of PROMs data were excluded. Outcomes were: visualization preferences; interpretation accuracy; guidance for clinical interpretation. RESULTS: Twenty-five out of 789 papers were included for final analysis. Most frequently studied formats were: bar charts, line graphs, and pie charts. Patients preferred bar charts and line graphs as these were easy and quick for retrieving information about their PROMs scores over time. Clinicians’ interpretation accuracy and preferences were similar among graphic visualization formats. Scores were most often compared with patients’ own previous scores; to further guide clinical interpretation, scores were compared to norm population scores. Different ‘add-ons’ improved interpretability for patients and clinicians, e.g. using colors, descriptions of measurement scale directionality, descriptive labels, and brief definitions. CONCLUSION: There was no predominant graphical visualization format approach in terms of preferences or interpretation accuracy for both patients and clinicians. Detailed clarification of graph content is essential. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-022-00424-3. Springer International Publishing 2022-03-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8894516/ /pubmed/35239055 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-022-00424-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research
Albers, Elaine A. C.
Fraterman, Itske
Walraven, Iris
Wilthagen, Erica
Schagen, Sanne B.
van der Ploeg, Iris M.
Wouters, Michel W. J. M.
van de Poll-Franse, Lonneke V.
de Ligt, Kelly M.
Visualization formats of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: a systematic review about preferences and interpretation accuracy
title Visualization formats of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: a systematic review about preferences and interpretation accuracy
title_full Visualization formats of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: a systematic review about preferences and interpretation accuracy
title_fullStr Visualization formats of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: a systematic review about preferences and interpretation accuracy
title_full_unstemmed Visualization formats of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: a systematic review about preferences and interpretation accuracy
title_short Visualization formats of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: a systematic review about preferences and interpretation accuracy
title_sort visualization formats of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: a systematic review about preferences and interpretation accuracy
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8894516/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35239055
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-022-00424-3
work_keys_str_mv AT alberselaineac visualizationformatsofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinclinicalpracticeasystematicreviewaboutpreferencesandinterpretationaccuracy
AT fratermanitske visualizationformatsofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinclinicalpracticeasystematicreviewaboutpreferencesandinterpretationaccuracy
AT walraveniris visualizationformatsofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinclinicalpracticeasystematicreviewaboutpreferencesandinterpretationaccuracy
AT wilthagenerica visualizationformatsofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinclinicalpracticeasystematicreviewaboutpreferencesandinterpretationaccuracy
AT schagensanneb visualizationformatsofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinclinicalpracticeasystematicreviewaboutpreferencesandinterpretationaccuracy
AT vanderploegirism visualizationformatsofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinclinicalpracticeasystematicreviewaboutpreferencesandinterpretationaccuracy
AT woutersmichelwjm visualizationformatsofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinclinicalpracticeasystematicreviewaboutpreferencesandinterpretationaccuracy
AT vandepollfranselonnekev visualizationformatsofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinclinicalpracticeasystematicreviewaboutpreferencesandinterpretationaccuracy
AT deligtkellym visualizationformatsofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinclinicalpracticeasystematicreviewaboutpreferencesandinterpretationaccuracy