Table 1 PRO feedback reports - literature overview
First author, year [Ref] | Target group | Main findings regarding PRO feedback reports |
|---|---|---|
Aldekhyyel R.N., 2018 [44] | health care professionals, patients | PRO results are reported to health care professionals, text-based messages to patients |
Baldwin J.L., 2017 [27] | health care professionals, patients | results 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, patients | simple 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 professionals | colors-coding helps to interpret results, it is important to present results over time |
Brundage M., 2005 [39] | patients | text-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] | patients | simple 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, patients | graphs are easier to understand than text-based feedback |
Fried T.R., 2016 [26] | patients | patients prefer short and condensed information |
Fritz F., 2011 [40] | health care professionals | overview of results in table format |
Gilbert A., 2015 [29] | health care professionals | tables 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, patients | depending on the population – reference to the norm population might be beneficial to patients |
Harle C.A., 2016 [45] | health care professionals | PRO scores are presented on 0–100 scale including nominal results such as mild or severe |
Izard J., 2014 [33] | health care professionals, patients | information 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 professionals | display of PRO scores either in fixed order or showing the most alarming on top |
Krogstad H., 2019 [42] | health care professionals | scales with anchored text facilitates interpretation of results |
McNair A.G., 2010 [34] | patients | simple line graphs on domain level are easy to understand |
Rothrock N.E., 2019 [15] | health care professionals | scores are shown in a longitudinal graph, results on an item level are provided for the most recent assessment |
Schwartzberg L., 2016 [47] | health care professionals | graphical and numerical presentation of longitudinal PRO scores |
Smith K.C., 2016 [35] | health care professionals, patients | patients 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, patients | PRO 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, patients | directionality 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 professionals | patients’ responses are shown on an item level |
Wu A.W., 2016 [41] | health care professionals | health 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 |