Skip to main content

Table 1 PRO feedback reports - literature overview

From: Patient-reported outcomes feedback report for knee arthroplasty patients should present selective information in a simple design - findings of a qualitative study

First author, year [Ref]Target groupMain findings regarding PRO feedback reports
Aldekhyyel R.N., 2018 [44]health care professionals, patientsPRO results are reported to health care professionals, text-based messages to patients
Baldwin J.L., 2017 [27]health care professionals, patientsresults have to be easy to understand, i.e. simplified medical terms, flagging results by including a short explanation / interpretation
Bantug E.T., 2016 [28]health care professionals, patientssimple graphs (on a domain level) are less prone to misinterpretation, results over time are of value to patients, additional score information, e.g. CI or SE are less preferred by patients, important findings should be highlighted, text should complement PRO scores, to many details increase cognitive burden
Barthel D., 2016 [14]health care professionalscolors-coding helps to interpret results, it is important to present results over time
Brundage M., 2005 [39]patientstext-based reports are the least preferred report style, simple line graphs to present longitudinal data are preferred by the majority of patients, additional information, such as error bars did not improve preference of patients
Cronin R.M., 2018 [31]patientssimple graphs including text is preferred over text only feedback, textual reports were less susceptible to misinterpretation compared to complex graphs
sharing results with health care professionals is important to patients
Demiris G., 2011 [32]health care professionals, patientsgraphs are easier to understand than text-based feedback
Fried T.R., 2016 [26]patientspatients prefer short and condensed information
Fritz F., 2011 [40]health care professionalsoverview of results in table format
Gilbert A., 2015 [29]health care professionalstables or graphs (e.g. bar graphs) to present PROs over time, scores could be shown on an item or domain level, information on clinical importance of scores or clinically important change aid decision-making, cut-off line to indicate significant scores
Grossman L.V., 2017 [43]health care professionals, patientsdepending on the population – reference to the norm population might be beneficial to patients
Harle C.A., 2016 [45]health care professionalsPRO scores are presented on 0–100 scale including nominal results such as mild or severe
Izard J., 2014 [33]health care professionals, patientsinformation that should be provided in a feedback report: comparison to the patient population, individual before and after treatment comparison, prediction of future scores, graphical display (bar or line chart) or tables are favored over pictographs, patients prefer bar charts, health care professionals prefer tables, bar charts and line graphs equally, reference to comparison groups could be concerning, dynamic display of reports to be able include or exclude additional elements might be useful
Krogstad H., 2017 [46]health care professionalsdisplay of PRO scores either in fixed order or showing the most alarming on top
Krogstad H., 2019 [42]health care professionalsscales with anchored text facilitates interpretation of results
McNair A.G., 2010 [34]patientssimple line graphs on domain level are easy to understand
Rothrock N.E., 2019 [15]health care professionalsscores are shown in a longitudinal graph, results on an item level are provided for the most recent assessment
Schwartzberg L., 2016 [47]health care professionalsgraphical and numerical presentation of longitudinal PRO scores
Smith K.C., 2016 [35]health care professionals, patientspatients and health care professionals prefer line graphs (patients prefer simple graphs (including simplified language), health care professionals prefer more detail including CI, p-values etc.), confusion if higher scores indicate better or worse outcomes should be avoided - y-axis should include descriptive labels and / or numbers, possible concerning scores and change should be highlighted (shading the normal range green, shading concerning scores red, red circles or threshold lines)
Snyder C.F., 2019 [37]health care professionals, patientsPRO scores should be presented on domain level over time using line graphs, clear labeling of axis (descriptive labeling) facilitates interpretation, concerning results should be highlighted
Snyder C.F., 2017 [36]health care professionals, patientsdirectionality of graphs with higher scores meaning better outcome are less prone to misinterpretation, threshold lines or red circles seem to be easier to understand compared to a green shaded area indicating the normal range
Sokka T., 2016 [48]health care professionalspatients’ responses are shown on an item level
Wu A.W., 2016 [41]health care professionalshealth care professionals prefer tables or graphs to display longitudinal results, clarification if higher scores mean better or worse outcomes by adding meaning of scores to graphs and arrows indicating the direction of scores, information on normal range, meaning of scores and guidance for action would be helpful, patients appreciate viewing own results and want to be notified when health care professionals view the scores