A mixed methods study on patients’ and healthcare professionals’ understanding of the graphical presentation of patient-reported outcome data at an inpatient unit for psychosomatic medicine

Kurzfassung/Abstract

Background
Patient involvement is a key goal in modern healthcare, and quality of care improves with effective information flow between patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential in patient-centered care. Electronic PRO monitoring (ePROM) involves collecting, analyzing, and documenting patient self-ratings, enabling treatment monitoring, screening, quality assurance, and research. The aim of this study was to investigate patients’ and HCPs’ understanding of the graphical presentation of longitudinal ePROM bar charts and the patients’ perspective on various modes of access to such data (e.g. paper reports, electronic formats, or HCP consultations).
Methods
Semi-structured interviews with 40 patients and 13 HCPs involved presenting longitudinal ePROM bar charts. Participants answered questions about changes and current states of four constructs (disease understanding, treatment effectiveness, depression, anxiety). They also interpreted the graphs and answered questions regarding report preferences, pros and cons of different report types, preferred assessment frequency, reactions to problems (e.g., red graph), and support requests for problematic results.
Results
Results showed that 80% of patients correctly interpreted the graphs (9/12 questions), with only one patient answering fewer than 50% correctly. 84.7% of HCPs answered at least 15/16 questions correctly. A significant association was found between patients’ understanding of ePROM results and their educational level. Most patients preferred receiving their ePROM reports through personal meetings with a written report for memory support.
Conclusion
Both patients in psychosomatic medicine wards and HCPs demonstrated a high level of understanding of ePROM results, with patients' educational levels influencing accuracy. Patients strongly preferred receiving ePROM reports through personal contact, suggesting that future studies should explore the effects of this report method.