MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411902822 · doi:10.1186/s41687-025-00911-3

Enhancing provider adoption of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) through implementation science: insights from two international workshops

2025· article· en· W4411902822 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Patient-Reported Outcomes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsCanadian Patient Safety InstituteMcGill University Health CentreTrinity Western UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPromContext (archaeology)AuditPatient-reported outcomeMedical educationPsychologyBest practiceKnowledge managementQuality of life (healthcare)NursingMedicineComputer scienceBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in practice is increasing, successful implementation is contingent on engaging healthcare providers (HCPs). Using Implementation Science (IS), we present the content of two workshops hosted at the International Society for Quality-of-Life annual conferences for individuals seeking to implement PROMs collection and use in their settings. Our goals were to provide workshop participants with knowledge, tools, and resources to prepare HCPs for PROM adoption and to demonstrate tailored strategies to meet context-specific needs. METHODS: An interdisciplinary team with diverse expertise in PROMs implementation delivered two workshops guided by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation - Behavior (COM-B) model and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Using dotmocracy, participants were asked to consider, for their local context, the factors most important for changing HCPs' behaviors to adopt PROMs in daily practice. RESULTS: The workshops incorporated IS theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) to identify barriers faced by HCPs, support behavior change, and apply tailored theory-informed implementation strategies to prepare HCPs for PROM integration and evaluate adoption success. The factors rated the most important by workshop participants (n = 53) were woven into the discussions to illustrate the most common barriers encountered by HCPs adopting PROMs. Presenters drew on real-world practice and research experiences to identify promising implementation strategies, including education, training, behavioral modeling, persuasion, environmental restructuring, enablement, and audit and feedback to increase the capability, opportunity, and motivation of HCPs. CONCLUSIONS: Given the increasing evidence base supporting the role of PROMs in patient-centered care, it is imperative to understand the mechanisms and best practices for increasing provider adoption of PROMs. This work offers a roadmap for understanding determinants more important to HCPs and systematically selecting theory-informed implementation strategies that may increase the likelihood of HCP adoption of PROMs. Offering tailored HCP training/education programs and implementation strategies can prepare HCPs for timely and effective PROM implementation.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.247
GPT teacher head0.577
Teacher spread0.330 · 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