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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |