MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408480289 · doi:10.1186/s12875-025-02766-5

Use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in primary care-based mental health programming: an environmental scan of Alberta, Canada

2025· article· en· W4408480289 on OpenAlexaffabout
Oacia Fair, Al‐Bakir Ali, Michel K. Haener, Kara Plotnikoff, Nolan Schaaf, Margo Schmitt‐Boshnick, Allison Soprovich

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Primary Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsChinook Regional HospitalFoothills Medical CentreNorthwestern PolytechnicUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthPrimary careOutcome (game theory)Patient-reported outcomePrimary (astronomy)MedicinePsychologyPsychiatryFamily medicineNursingEconomicsQuality of life (healthcare)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many Primary Care Networks (PCNs) in Alberta collect Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) to support patient-centered care. However, there is limited knowledge on what tools are currently being administered across PCNs and how the data is used. For this study, we focused on PROMs for mental health programming (MHP). Our objectives are to identify what PROMs are currently being administered in PCNs and what domains they measure for MHP; understand PCNs’ capacity to implement and use PROMs data effectively for their PCN MHP; describe how PROMs are currently being reported in PCNs for MHP; and understand the feasibility of having standardized and consistent measurement of PROMs in general across PCNs. This environmental scan employs a survey for PCN evaluators (those responsible for managing PROMs data for their PCN), tailored to examine PROMs in PCN MHP across all populations. Evaluators from all 39 Alberta PCNs were invited to complete the survey on behalf of their PCN. It included closed and open-ended questions. Survey results were aggregated and reported by objective. Evaluators from 20 PCNs (51%) completed the survey, with a mix of rural/urban and across all five health zones. Nine out of 20 reported 11 tools currently being collected and seven out of nine reported using more than one tool for MHP. The most used tools were the EQ-5D-5 L (7/9) and PHQ-9 (6/9). Seven respondents indicated the EQ-5D-5Lwas useful or sometimes useful; five reported the PHQ-9 was useful or sometimes useful. While the use of each PROM varied, most PROMs are used for clinical care decisions and internal reporting. Most respondents indicated standardizing PROMs across PCNs would be challenging, however having alignment of PROMs and sharing best practices for PCNs would be beneficial. These results provide a better understanding of the current use of PROMs in PCNs, specific to MHP, which will be further examined through future narrative conversations. Overall, this study informs primary care leadership on the current use of PROMs and supports the advancement of PROMs use in Alberta.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Primary CareSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207