Patients' and health professionals' understanding of and preferences for graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores
Purpose To investigate patients' and health professionals' understanding of and preferences for different graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores. Methods We recruited cancer patients (any treatment and diagnosis) in four European countries and health profes...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Quality of life research 2016-03, Vol.25 (3), p.595-604 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 604 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 595 |
| container_title | Quality of life research |
| container_volume | 25 |
| creator | Kuijpers, W. Giesinger, J. M. Zabernigg, A. Young, T. Friend, E. Tomaszewska, I. M. Aaronson, N. K. Holzner, B. |
| description | Purpose To investigate patients' and health professionals' understanding of and preferences for different graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores. Methods We recruited cancer patients (any treatment and diagnosis) in four European countries and health professionals in the Netherlands. Using a questionnaire, we assessed objective and self-rated understanding of QLQ-C30 scores and preferences for five presentation styles (bar and line charts, with or without color coding, and a heat map). Results In total, 548 patients and 227 health professionals participated. Eighty-three percent of patients and 85 % of professionals self-rated the graphs as very or quite easy to understand; this did not differ between graphical presentation styles. The mean percentage of correct answers to questions objectively assessing understanding was 59 % in patients, 78 % in medical specialists, and 74 % in other health professionals. Objective understanding did not differ between graphical formats in patients. For non-colored charts, 49.8 % of patients did not have a preference. Colored bar charts (39 %) were preferred over heat maps (20 %) and colored line charts (12 %). Medical specialists preferred heat maps (46 %) followed by non-colored bar charts (19 %), whereas these charts were equally valued by other health professionals (both 32 %). Conclusion The substantial discrepancy between participants' high self-rated and relatively low objective understanding of graphical presentation of PRO results highlights the need to provide sufficient guidance when presenting such results. It may be appropriate to adapt the presentation of PRO results to individual preferences. This could be facilitated when PROs are administered and presented to patients and health professionals electronically. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11136-015-1107-3 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4759250</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>44852378</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>44852378</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c562t-efa1f26df86e89786eba57bb7d679a2833726b0d8abe0e8677a412425b880db83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kctuEzEYhS0EoqHwACxAlljAxuDL-LZBQlG5SJFKUVlbnhlP4sixgz0TqW_BI-MwISos2NiL853j3_8B4DnBbwnG8l0hhDCBMOGIECwRewAWhEuGqGj0Q7DAWlCkWcMuwJNSthhjpTF9DC6oYJxpzBfg51c7ehfH8hra2MONs2HcwH1OgyvFp2hDVabYu1zGCvi4hmn4je6zG1x2sXMFDinDdbb7je9sOCqlRtbgFGEZ78KJ8NV_8P1kAwru4AK8uv52u4Q3qxu0ZBiWLlXjU_BoqI-6Z6f7Enz_eHW7_IxW15--LD-sUMcFHZEbLBmo6AclnNKynq3lsm1lL6S2VDEmqWhxr2zrsFNCStsQ2lDeKoX7VrFL8H7O3U_tzvVdHTjbYPbZ72y-M8l687cS_cas08E0kmvKcQ14cwrI6cfkymh2vnQuBBtdmoohUkgsCRWyoq_-QbdpysfdVqoiWtf2KkVmqsuplLrd8zAEm2PfZu7b1L7NsW_Dqufl_V-cHX8KrgCdgVKluHb53tP_SX0xm7ZlTPkc2jSKUyYV-wXzbcHD</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1771299107</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Patients' and health professionals' understanding of and preferences for graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Kuijpers, W. ; Giesinger, J. M. ; Zabernigg, A. ; Young, T. ; Friend, E. ; Tomaszewska, I. M. ; Aaronson, N. K. ; Holzner, B.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kuijpers, W. ; Giesinger, J. M. ; Zabernigg, A. ; Young, T. ; Friend, E. ; Tomaszewska, I. M. ; Aaronson, N. K. ; Holzner, B.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose To investigate patients' and health professionals' understanding of and preferences for different graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores. Methods We recruited cancer patients (any treatment and diagnosis) in four European countries and health professionals in the Netherlands. Using a questionnaire, we assessed objective and self-rated understanding of QLQ-C30 scores and preferences for five presentation styles (bar and line charts, with or without color coding, and a heat map). Results In total, 548 patients and 227 health professionals participated. Eighty-three percent of patients and 85 % of professionals self-rated the graphs as very or quite easy to understand; this did not differ between graphical presentation styles. The mean percentage of correct answers to questions objectively assessing understanding was 59 % in patients, 78 % in medical specialists, and 74 % in other health professionals. Objective understanding did not differ between graphical formats in patients. For non-colored charts, 49.8 % of patients did not have a preference. Colored bar charts (39 %) were preferred over heat maps (20 %) and colored line charts (12 %). Medical specialists preferred heat maps (46 %) followed by non-colored bar charts (19 %), whereas these charts were equally valued by other health professionals (both 32 %). Conclusion The substantial discrepancy between participants' high self-rated and relatively low objective understanding of graphical presentation of PRO results highlights the need to provide sufficient guidance when presenting such results. It may be appropriate to adapt the presentation of PRO results to individual preferences. This could be facilitated when PROs are administered and presented to patients and health professionals electronically.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0962-9343</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-2649</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11136-015-1107-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26353905</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Attitude of Health Personnel ; Cancer ; Cancer therapies ; Charts ; Clinical medicine ; Clinical outcomes ; Clinical trials ; Comprehension ; Computer Graphics ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Data collection ; Europe ; Female ; Graphs ; Health outcomes ; Health Status Indicators ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Male ; Medical personnel ; Medical records ; Medical specialists ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasms ; Netherlands ; Oncology ; Patient Outcome Assessment ; Patient Preference - statistics & numerical data ; Patient satisfaction ; Patients ; Preferences ; Public Health ; Quality of Life ; Quality of Life Research ; Questionnaires ; Sociodemographics ; Sociology ; SPECIAL SECTION: PROS IN NON-STANDARD SETTINGS (BY INVITATION ONLY) ; Studies ; Symptoms ; Web portals</subject><ispartof>Quality of life research, 2016-03, Vol.25 (3), p.595-604</ispartof><rights>Springer International Publishing 2016</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2015</rights><rights>Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c562t-efa1f26df86e89786eba57bb7d679a2833726b0d8abe0e8677a412425b880db83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c562t-efa1f26df86e89786eba57bb7d679a2833726b0d8abe0e8677a412425b880db83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44852378$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/44852378$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,799,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26353905$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kuijpers, W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giesinger, J. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zabernigg, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Young, T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Friend, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tomaszewska, I. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aaronson, N. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holzner, B.</creatorcontrib><title>Patients' and health professionals' understanding of and preferences for graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores</title><title>Quality of life research</title><addtitle>Qual Life Res</addtitle><addtitle>Qual Life Res</addtitle><description>Purpose To investigate patients' and health professionals' understanding of and preferences for different graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores. Methods We recruited cancer patients (any treatment and diagnosis) in four European countries and health professionals in the Netherlands. Using a questionnaire, we assessed objective and self-rated understanding of QLQ-C30 scores and preferences for five presentation styles (bar and line charts, with or without color coding, and a heat map). Results In total, 548 patients and 227 health professionals participated. Eighty-three percent of patients and 85 % of professionals self-rated the graphs as very or quite easy to understand; this did not differ between graphical presentation styles. The mean percentage of correct answers to questions objectively assessing understanding was 59 % in patients, 78 % in medical specialists, and 74 % in other health professionals. Objective understanding did not differ between graphical formats in patients. For non-colored charts, 49.8 % of patients did not have a preference. Colored bar charts (39 %) were preferred over heat maps (20 %) and colored line charts (12 %). Medical specialists preferred heat maps (46 %) followed by non-colored bar charts (19 %), whereas these charts were equally valued by other health professionals (both 32 %). Conclusion The substantial discrepancy between participants' high self-rated and relatively low objective understanding of graphical presentation of PRO results highlights the need to provide sufficient guidance when presenting such results. It may be appropriate to adapt the presentation of PRO results to individual preferences. This could be facilitated when PROs are administered and presented to patients and health professionals electronically.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Cancer therapies</subject><subject>Charts</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Clinical outcomes</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Comprehension</subject><subject>Computer Graphics</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Europe</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Graphs</subject><subject>Health outcomes</subject><subject>Health Status Indicators</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Medical records</subject><subject>Medical specialists</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neoplasms</subject><subject>Netherlands</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Patient Outcome Assessment</subject><subject>Patient Preference - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Patient satisfaction</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Preferences</subject><subject>Public Health</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Quality of Life Research</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Sociodemographics</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><subject>SPECIAL SECTION: PROS IN NON-STANDARD SETTINGS (BY INVITATION ONLY)</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Symptoms</subject><subject>Web portals</subject><issn>0962-9343</issn><issn>1573-2649</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kctuEzEYhS0EoqHwACxAlljAxuDL-LZBQlG5SJFKUVlbnhlP4sixgz0TqW_BI-MwISos2NiL853j3_8B4DnBbwnG8l0hhDCBMOGIECwRewAWhEuGqGj0Q7DAWlCkWcMuwJNSthhjpTF9DC6oYJxpzBfg51c7ehfH8hra2MONs2HcwH1OgyvFp2hDVabYu1zGCvi4hmn4je6zG1x2sXMFDinDdbb7je9sOCqlRtbgFGEZ78KJ8NV_8P1kAwru4AK8uv52u4Q3qxu0ZBiWLlXjU_BoqI-6Z6f7Enz_eHW7_IxW15--LD-sUMcFHZEbLBmo6AclnNKynq3lsm1lL6S2VDEmqWhxr2zrsFNCStsQ2lDeKoX7VrFL8H7O3U_tzvVdHTjbYPbZ72y-M8l687cS_cas08E0kmvKcQ14cwrI6cfkymh2vnQuBBtdmoohUkgsCRWyoq_-QbdpysfdVqoiWtf2KkVmqsuplLrd8zAEm2PfZu7b1L7NsW_Dqufl_V-cHX8KrgCdgVKluHb53tP_SX0xm7ZlTPkc2jSKUyYV-wXzbcHD</recordid><startdate>20160301</startdate><enddate>20160301</enddate><creator>Kuijpers, W.</creator><creator>Giesinger, J. M.</creator><creator>Zabernigg, A.</creator><creator>Young, T.</creator><creator>Friend, E.</creator><creator>Tomaszewska, I. M.</creator><creator>Aaronson, N. K.</creator><creator>Holzner, B.</creator><general>Springer</general><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160301</creationdate><title>Patients' and health professionals' understanding of and preferences for graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores</title><author>Kuijpers, W. ; Giesinger, J. M. ; Zabernigg, A. ; Young, T. ; Friend, E. ; Tomaszewska, I. M. ; Aaronson, N. K. ; Holzner, B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c562t-efa1f26df86e89786eba57bb7d679a2833726b0d8abe0e8677a412425b880db83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Attitude of Health Personnel</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Cancer therapies</topic><topic>Charts</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Clinical outcomes</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Comprehension</topic><topic>Computer Graphics</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Europe</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Graphs</topic><topic>Health outcomes</topic><topic>Health Status Indicators</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Medical records</topic><topic>Medical specialists</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neoplasms</topic><topic>Netherlands</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Patient Outcome Assessment</topic><topic>Patient Preference - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Patient satisfaction</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Preferences</topic><topic>Public Health</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Quality of Life Research</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Sociodemographics</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><topic>SPECIAL SECTION: PROS IN NON-STANDARD SETTINGS (BY INVITATION ONLY)</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Symptoms</topic><topic>Web portals</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kuijpers, W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giesinger, J. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zabernigg, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Young, T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Friend, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tomaszewska, I. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aaronson, N. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holzner, B.</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Quality of life research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kuijpers, W.</au><au>Giesinger, J. M.</au><au>Zabernigg, A.</au><au>Young, T.</au><au>Friend, E.</au><au>Tomaszewska, I. M.</au><au>Aaronson, N. K.</au><au>Holzner, B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Patients' and health professionals' understanding of and preferences for graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores</atitle><jtitle>Quality of life research</jtitle><stitle>Qual Life Res</stitle><addtitle>Qual Life Res</addtitle><date>2016-03-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>595</spage><epage>604</epage><pages>595-604</pages><issn>0962-9343</issn><eissn>1573-2649</eissn><abstract>Purpose To investigate patients' and health professionals' understanding of and preferences for different graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores. Methods We recruited cancer patients (any treatment and diagnosis) in four European countries and health professionals in the Netherlands. Using a questionnaire, we assessed objective and self-rated understanding of QLQ-C30 scores and preferences for five presentation styles (bar and line charts, with or without color coding, and a heat map). Results In total, 548 patients and 227 health professionals participated. Eighty-three percent of patients and 85 % of professionals self-rated the graphs as very or quite easy to understand; this did not differ between graphical presentation styles. The mean percentage of correct answers to questions objectively assessing understanding was 59 % in patients, 78 % in medical specialists, and 74 % in other health professionals. Objective understanding did not differ between graphical formats in patients. For non-colored charts, 49.8 % of patients did not have a preference. Colored bar charts (39 %) were preferred over heat maps (20 %) and colored line charts (12 %). Medical specialists preferred heat maps (46 %) followed by non-colored bar charts (19 %), whereas these charts were equally valued by other health professionals (both 32 %). Conclusion The substantial discrepancy between participants' high self-rated and relatively low objective understanding of graphical presentation of PRO results highlights the need to provide sufficient guidance when presenting such results. It may be appropriate to adapt the presentation of PRO results to individual preferences. This could be facilitated when PROs are administered and presented to patients and health professionals electronically.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer</pub><pmid>26353905</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11136-015-1107-3</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0962-9343 |
| ispartof | Quality of life research, 2016-03, Vol.25 (3), p.595-604 |
| issn | 0962-9343 1573-2649 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4759250 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals |
| subjects | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Attitude of Health Personnel Cancer Cancer therapies Charts Clinical medicine Clinical outcomes Clinical trials Comprehension Computer Graphics Cross-Sectional Studies Data collection Europe Female Graphs Health outcomes Health Status Indicators Hospitals Humans Male Medical personnel Medical records Medical specialists Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Neoplasms Netherlands Oncology Patient Outcome Assessment Patient Preference - statistics & numerical data Patient satisfaction Patients Preferences Public Health Quality of Life Quality of Life Research Questionnaires Sociodemographics Sociology SPECIAL SECTION: PROS IN NON-STANDARD SETTINGS (BY INVITATION ONLY) Studies Symptoms Web portals |
| title | Patients' and health professionals' understanding of and preferences for graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T08%3A57%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Patients'%20and%20health%20professionals'%20understanding%20of%20and%20preferences%20for%20graphical%20presentation%20styles%20for%20individual-level%20EORTC%20QLQ-C30%20scores&rft.jtitle=Quality%20of%20life%20research&rft.au=Kuijpers,%20W.&rft.date=2016-03-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=595&rft.epage=604&rft.pages=595-604&rft.issn=0962-9343&rft.eissn=1573-2649&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11136-015-1107-3&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_pubme%3E44852378%3C/jstor_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1771299107&rft_id=info:pmid/26353905&rft_jstor_id=44852378&rfr_iscdi=true |