Elissa T Bantug1, Theresa Coles2, Katherine C Smith3, Claire F Snyder4, Julie Rouette5, Michael D Brundage5. 1. Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, 1650 Orleans St., Baltimore, MD 21287, United States. Electronic address: ebantug1@jhmi.edu. 2. Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States. 3. Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, 1650 Orleans St., Baltimore, MD 21287, United States; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States. 4. Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, 1650 Orleans St., Baltimore, MD 21287, United States; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States; Division of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 624 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States. 5. Queen's Cancer Research Institute, 10 Stuart Street, Level 2, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) report patients' assessments of the impact of a health condition and its treatment, and can promote patient-centered care. OBJECTIVES: To address the effectiveness of graphic display of PRO data in clinical practice by reviewing existing literature, and current recommendations, regarding graphic presentations of PROs. METHODS: We performed an integrated literature review to identify themes and emerging principles guiding effective graphic display of PRO data. The findings were placed in the context of the literature informing graphical presentation of other clinical data. RESULTS: Although a large body of literature informs graphical presentation of clinical data, only nine empirical studies addressed presentation of PROs. Four major themes emerged: many patients and most clinicians can accurately interpret some PRO graphs; interpretation accuracy, personal preference, and perceived level of understanding are sometimes discordant; patient age and education may predict PRO graph comprehension; patients tend to prefer simpler graphs than do clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Little empirical research specifically addresses graphic representation of PRO data. A single format may not work optimally for both clinicians and patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patients and clinicians may or may not comprehend PRO data when graphically presented. Further research to determine best practices for presenting PROs optimally is needed.
UNLABELLED: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) report patients' assessments of the impact of a health condition and its treatment, and can promote patient-centered care. OBJECTIVES: To address the effectiveness of graphic display of PRO data in clinical practice by reviewing existing literature, and current recommendations, regarding graphic presentations of PROs. METHODS: We performed an integrated literature review to identify themes and emerging principles guiding effective graphic display of PRO data. The findings were placed in the context of the literature informing graphical presentation of other clinical data. RESULTS: Although a large body of literature informs graphical presentation of clinical data, only nine empirical studies addressed presentation of PROs. Four major themes emerged: many patients and most clinicians can accurately interpret some PRO graphs; interpretation accuracy, personal preference, and perceived level of understanding are sometimes discordant; patient age and education may predict PRO graph comprehension; patients tend to prefer simpler graphs than do clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Little empirical research specifically addresses graphic representation of PRO data. A single format may not work optimally for both clinicians and patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patients and clinicians may or may not comprehend PRO data when graphically presented. Further research to determine best practices for presenting PROs optimally is needed.
Authors: K Mayoral; O Garin; M A Caballero-Rabasco; M Praena-Crespo; A Bercedo; G Hernandez; J Castillo; C Lizano Barrantes; Y Pardo; M Ferrer Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-01-02 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Elliott Tolbert; Michael Brundage; Elissa Bantug; Amanda L Blackford; Katherine Smith; Claire Snyder Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Margaret Bevans; Areej El-Jawahri; D Kathryn Tierney; Lori Wiener; William A Wood; Flora Hoodin; Erin E Kent; Paul B Jacobsen; Stephanie J Lee; Matthew M Hsieh; Ellen M Denzen; Karen L Syrjala Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2016-09-19 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Claire Snyder; Katherine Smith; Bernhard Holzner; Yonaira M Rivera; Elissa Bantug; Michael Brundage Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 4.147