MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3038516502 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.200232

“Unspoken Questions”: A Qualitative Study of Rheumatologists’ Perspectives on the Clinical Implementation of Patient-reported Outcome Measures

2020· article· en· W3038516502 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S.Psi. Taufik Kasturi, John B. Wong, Lisa A. Mandl, Timothy E. McAlindon, Amy LeClair

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsPromMedicinePsychological interventionQualitative researchFamily medicineMEDLINEPatient satisfactionMedical educationPhysical therapyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To identify rheumatologists' views on perceived barriers and facilitators to the clinical implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM). METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with academically affiliated clinical rheumatologists. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Deidentified transcripts were independently coded and analyzed for themes. RESULTS: Fifteen attending rheumatologists, 8 women (53%) and 7 men (47%) with a mean of 17.3 years in practice (range 5-43) at 2 urban academic medical centers, participated in interviews. Rheumatologists identified several barriers to integrating PROM in clinical care, highlighting physician buy-in and culture change as significant challenges beyond logistical considerations. They further underscored the lack of effective interventions and resources for addressing the domains of most interest to patients. Physicians also recognized significant benefits of PROM in clinical care, including contributing to the clinical impression by providing the patient perspective, and promoting agenda setting by uncovering "unspoken questions." They additionally noted that PROM could support treatment planning, build patient-physician relationships, and facilitate patient engagement. Participants suggested that technology, physician education, and team-based care could facilitate the effective implementation of PROM. CONCLUSION: Rheumatologists identified multiple mechanisms through which PROM could augment clinical care, but also noted several obstacles to implementation, questioning the added value of PROM and the limited availability of interventions to improve patient-centered outcomes. Programs seeking to successfully integrate PROM to enhance patient-centered care and meet quality benchmarks should prioritize physician buy-in and training, and provide resources to address the outcomes that are measured.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.015
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies→French-language works237,207→