↓ Skip to main content

Improving quality of care through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): expert interviews using the NHS PROMs Programme and the Swedish quality registers for knee and hip arthroplasty as examples

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Improving quality of care through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): expert interviews using the NHS PROMs Programme and the Swedish quality registers for knee and hip arthroplasty as examples
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-2898-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Birgit Prodinger, Paul Taylor

Abstract

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been integrated in national quality registries or specific national monitoring initiatives to inform the improvement of quality of care on a national scale. However there are many unanswered questions, such as: how these systems are set up, whether they lead to improved quality of care, which stakeholders use the information once it is available. The aim of this study was to examine supporting and hindering factors relevant to integrating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in selected health information systems (HIS) tailored toward improving quality of care across the entire health system. First, a systematic search and review was conducted to outline previously identified factors relevant to the integration of PROMs in the selected HIS. A social network analysis was performed to identify networks of experts in these systems. Second, expert interviews were conducted to discuss and elaborate on the identified factors. Directive content analysis was applied using a HIS Evaluation Framework as the frame of reference. This framework is structured into four components: Organization, Human, Technology, and Net benefits. The literature review revealed 37 papers for the NHS PROMs Programme and 26 papers for the SHPR and SKAR: Five networks of researchers were identified for the NHS PROMs Programme and 1 for the SHPR and SKAR. Seven experts related to the NHS PROMs Programme and 3 experts related to the SKAR and SHPR participated in the study. The main themes which revealed in relation to Organization were Governance and Capacity building; to Human: Reporting and Stakeholder Engagement; to Technology: the Selection and Collection of PROMs and Data linkage. In relation to Net benefits, system-specific considerations are presented. Both examples succeeded in integrating PROMs into HIS on a national scale. The lack of an established standard on what change PROMs should be achieved by an intervention limits their usefulness for monitoring quality of care. Whether the PROMs data collected within these systems can be used in routine clinical practice is considered a challenge in both countries.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Student > Master 12 14%
Other 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 20 24%
Unknown 14 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 17%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Unspecified 3 4%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 19 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 13 February 2018.
All research outputs
#1,892,691
of 12,504,607 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#861
of 4,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,162
of 341,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,504,607 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,146 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
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 341,382 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them