Wagner 1997.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Randomised trial, USA | |
| Participants | 210 epilepsy patients visiting an outpatient neurology clinic. | |
| Interventions | Optically scanned versions of the SF‐36 were presented to physicians in the intervention group before their encounter with the patients. Intervention features Multiple simple feedback (one PROM at multiple times) PROM(s) used as intervention: MOS SF‐36 Health Survey (SF‐36) Constructs measured: Health related Quality of Life, Symptoms, Functioning Instrument categories/domains: Generic Administration features Where PROMs administered: Clinical setting (e.g. waiting room, office, etc) How administered: Self‐administered Format of PROMs questionnaire(s): Paper Feedback features Format of PROMs feedback: Paper How often information fed back: Each visit Who information fed back to: Clinicians Information fed back: Scores, Previous scores, Interpretation guidance |
|
| Outcomes | Main outcomes: physician's perceptions on the usefulness of SF‐36 assessment, patient perceptions about their satisfaction with care. | |
| Notes | The study was supported by Cancer Research UK; National Lotteries Charities Board; Department of Health. The study ran between January 1994 and June 1994. Conflicts of interest were not reported. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Patients were randomly assigned to two groups using a random number table |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not reported |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | No blinding |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | No blinding |
| Baseline outcome measurements similar | Low risk | No statistically significant differences were found for the outcomes |
| Baseline characteristics similar | High risk | Significant differences were found for most of the variables |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Low number of dropouts |
| Was study protected against contamination | High risk | Clinicians were allocated within a clinic or clinics and it is possible that communication between intervention and control professionals could have occurred |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | None reported |