Acceptability, Perceptions, and Experiences Regarding Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be defined as any report of a patient's health taken directly from the patient. Routine collection of PRO data has been shown to offer potential benefits to patient-doctor communication. Electronic forms of PRO measures (PROMs) could be more beneficial in comparison to traditional PROMs in obtaining PROs from patients. However, it is currently unclear whether the routine collection of electronic PRO data could result in better outcomes for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the perspectives of patients and surgeons on the use of electronic PROMs. Based on prior research, technical skill and experience level of the surgeon, long-term quality of life, patient involvement in decision-making, communication skills of the surgeon, cleanliness of the ward environment, and standards of nursing care are identified to be the most important factors for the patients. METHODS: This is a mixed methods prospective study that will collect both quantitative (survey) and qualitative (interview) data. The study has two components. The first involves the distribution of an electronic presurvey to patients who received elective LC within 48 hours of their surgery (n=80). This survey will explore the perspective of patients regarding the procedure, hospital experience, long-term outcomes, and the perceived value of using PROMs. These patients will then be followed up after 1 year and given another survey. The second component involves the distribution of the same survey and the completion of structured interviews with general surgeons (n=10). The survey will ascertain what PROs from the participants are most useful for the surgeons and the interviews will focus on how the surgeons view routine PRO collection. A convenience sampling approach will be used. Surveys will be distributed through Qualtrics and interviews will be completed on Microsoft Teams. RESULTS: Data collection began on February 14, 2023. As of February 12, 2024, 71 of 80 recruited patients have been given the presurvey. The follow-up with the patients and the general surgeon components of the study have not begun. The expected completion date of this study is in April 2025. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study will investigate the potential of electronic PRO collection to offer value for patients and general surgeons. This approach will ensure that patient care is investigated in a multifaceted way, offering patient-centric guidance to surgeons in their approach to care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/57344.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.080 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.008 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".