↓ Skip to main content

Incorporating PROMIS Symptom Measures into Primary Care Practice—a Randomized Clinical Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
Title
Incorporating PROMIS Symptom Measures into Primary Care Practice—a Randomized Clinical Trial
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11606-018-4391-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kurt Kroenke, Tasneem L. Talib, Timothy E. Stump, Jacob Kean, David A. Haggstrom, Paige DeChant, Kittie R. Lake, Madison Stout, Patrick O. Monahan

Abstract

Symptoms account for more than 400 million clinic visits annually in the USA. The SPADE symptoms (sleep, pain, anxiety, depression, and low energy/fatigue) are particularly prevalent and undertreated. To assess the effectiveness of providing PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Information System) symptom scores to clinicians on symptom outcomes. Randomized clinical trial conducted from March 2015 through May 2016 in general internal medicine and family practice clinics in an academic healthcare system. Primary care patients who screened positive for at least one SPADE symptom. After completing the PROMIS symptom measures electronically immediately prior to their visit, the 300 study participants were randomized to a feedback group in which their clinician received a visual display of symptom scores or a control group in which scores were not provided to clinicians. The primary outcome was the 3-month change in composite SPADE score. Secondary outcomes were individual symptom scores, symptom documentation in the clinic note, symptom-specific clinician actions, and patient satisfaction. Most patients (84%) had multiple clinically significant (T-score ≥ 55) SPADE symptoms. Both groups demonstrated moderate symptom improvement with a non-significant trend favoring the feedback compared to control group (between-group difference in composite T-score improvement, 1.1; P = 0.17). Symptoms present at baseline resolved at 3-month follow-up only one third of the time, and patients frequently still desired treatment. Except for pain, clinically significant symptoms were documented less than half the time. Neither symptom documentation, symptom-specific clinician actions, nor patient satisfaction differed between treatment arms. Predictors of greater symptom improvement included female sex, black race, fewer medical conditions, and receiving care in a family medicine clinic. Simple feedback of symptom scores to primary care clinicians in the absence of additional systems support or incentives is not superior to usual care in improving symptom outcomes. clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02383862.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Student > Master 11 12%
Unspecified 9 10%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 28 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 12%
Unspecified 9 10%
Psychology 7 8%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 30 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 May 2018.
All research outputs
#21,420,714
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#7,217
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#294,883
of 333,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#127
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,032 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.