| Title |
Automating Collection of Pain-Related Patient-Reported Outcomes to Enhance Clinical Care and Research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-018-4326-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ashli Owen-Smith, Meghan Mayhew, Michael C. Leo, Alexandra Varga, Lindsay Benes, Allison Bonifay, Lynn DeBar |
| Abstract |
Chronic pain is highly prevalent, and the ability to routinely measure patients' pain and treatment response using validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments is important to clinical care. Despite this recognition, systematic use in everyday clinical care is rare. The aims of this study were to (1) describe infrastructure designed to automate PRO data collection, (2) compare study-enhanced PRO completion rates to those in clinical care, and (3) evaluate patient response rates by method of PRO administration and sociodemographic and/or clinical characteristics. The Pain Program for Active Coping and Training (PPACT) is a pragmatic clinical trial conducted within three regions of the Kaiser Permanente health care system. PPACT evaluates the effect of integrative primary care-based pain management services on outcomes for chronic pain patients on long-term opioid treatment. We implemented a tiered process for quarterly assessment of PROs to supplement clinical collection and ensure adequate trial data using three methods: web-based personal health records (PHR), automated interactive voice response (IVR) calls, and live outreach. Among a subset of PPACT participants examined (n = 632), the tiered study-enhanced PRO completion rates were higher than in clinical care: 96% completed ≥ 1 study-administered PRO with mean of 3.46 (SD = 0.85) vs. 74% completed in clinical care with a mean of 2.43 (SD = 2.08). Among all PPACT participants at 3 months (n = 831), PRO completion was 86% and analyses of response by key characteristics found only that participant age predicted an increased likelihood of responding to PHR and IVR outreach. Adherence to pain-related PRO data collection using our enhanced tiered approach was high. No demographic or clinical identifiers other than age were associated with differential response by modality. Successful ancillary support should employ multimodal electronic health record functionalities for PRO administration. Using automated modalities is feasible and may facilitate better sustainability for regular PRO administration within health care systems. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT02113592. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Unknown | 37 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Unknown | 39 | 44% |
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 12 November 2019.
All research outputs
#18,756,367
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#6,408
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,170
of 332,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#98
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 332,610 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.