Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format
Recent searches

Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format
Sample paper formatted on SciSpace - SciSpace
This content is only for preview purposes. The original open access content can be found here.
Look Inside
Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format Example of Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes format
Sample paper formatted on SciSpace - SciSpace
This content is only for preview purposes. The original open access content can be found here.
open access Open Access

Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes — Template for authors

Publisher: Springer
Categories Rank Trend in last 3 yrs
Health Information Management #24 of 39 down down by None rank
Health Informatics #58 of 95 down down by None rank
journal-quality-icon Journal quality:
Medium
calendar-icon Last 4 years overview: 246 Published Papers | 494 Citations
indexed-in-icon Indexed in: Scopus
last-updated-icon Last updated: 16/06/2020
Related journals
Insights
General info
Top papers
Popular templates
Get started guide
Why choose from SciSpace
FAQ

Related Journals

open access Open Access
recommended Recommended

SAGE

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 4.3
SJR: 0.603
SNIP: 1.079
open access Open Access

Hindawi

Quality:  
Good
CiteRatio: 3.1
SJR: 0.363
SNIP: 1.189
open access Open Access
recommended Recommended

IEEE

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 10.2
SJR: 1.293
SNIP: 2.448
open access Open Access
recommended Recommended

SAGE

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 7.9
SJR: 1.192
SNIP: 2.105

Journal Performance & Insights

CiteRatio

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)

Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)

A measure of average citations received per peer-reviewed paper published in the journal.

Measures weighted citations received by the journal. Citation weighting depends on the categories and prestige of the citing journal.

Measures actual citations received relative to citations expected for the journal's category.

2.0

100% from 2019

CiteRatio for Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 2.0
2019 1.0
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

0.803

SJR for Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes from 2020 - 2020
Year Value
2020 0.803
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

1.145

Year Value
2020 1.145
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • CiteRatio of this journal has increased by 100% in last years.
  • This journal’s CiteRatio is in the top 10 percentile category.

insights Insights

  • This journal’s SJR is in the top 10 percentile category.

insights Insights

  • This journal’s SNIP is in the top 10 percentile category.

Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes

Guideline source: View

All company, product and service names used in this website are for identification purposes only. All product names, trademarks and registered trademarks are property of their respective owners.

Use of these names, trademarks and brands does not imply endorsement or affiliation. Disclaimer Notice

Springer

Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes

Approved by publishing and review experts on SciSpace, this template is built as per for Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes formatting guidelines as mentioned in Springer author instructions. The current version was created on and has been used by 386 authors to write and format their manuscripts to this journal.

i
Last updated on
16 Jun 2020
i
ISSN
1606-8610
i
Open Access
Yes
i
Sherpa RoMEO Archiving Policy
White faq
i
Plagiarism Check
Available via Turnitin
i
Endnote Style
Download Available
i
Citation Type
Author Year
(Blonder et al, 1982)
i
Bibliography Example
Blonder GE, Tinkham M, Klapwijk TM (1982) Transition from metallic to tunneling regimes in superconducting microconstrictions: Excess current, charge imbalance, and supercurrent conversion. Phys Rev B 25(7):4515–4532, URL 10.1103/PhysRevB.25.4515

Top papers written in this journal

open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1186/S41687-017-0022-5
The Japanese version of the National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE): psychometric validation and discordance between clinician and patient assessments of adverse events

Abstract:

The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) was developed by the National Cancer Institute as an adverse event assessment system to evaluate patients’ symptoms, which tend to be underestimated in cancer clinical trials. The aim of this study was to assess the psychom... The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) was developed by the National Cancer Institute as an adverse event assessment system to evaluate patients’ symptoms, which tend to be underestimated in cancer clinical trials. The aim of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the Japanese version of the PRO-CTCAE and the degree of adverse event assessment discordance between clinicians and patients. A total of 187 cancer patients receiving systemic therapy were enrolled. Reproducibility, criterion validity, and responsiveness of the Japanese version of PROCTCAE were assessed. The EORTC QLQ-C30 was used as an external anchor. Discordance of assessment of adverse events between clinician and patients were also assessed using the CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE. A total of 187 participants (187 for criterion validity, 80 for reproducibility, and 100 for responsiveness), were analyzed (Mage = 62.4 years). All patients responded to at least one symptom item (M = 16). The mean (SD) intra-class correlation coefficients of overall reproducibility for the Japanese PRO-CTCAE was 0.63 (0.02). The correlation coefficient for the corresponding items in the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Japanese PRO-CTCAE was high (Pearson r = 0.56–0.76). The analysis of responsiveness revealed significant dose-response trends (Jonckheere-Terpstra test, ps < 0.001). Depending on the adverse events, a discrepancy was observed in evaluation between the clinician and patient. These results revealed that there is underestimation in the assessment of adverse events in Japan, and that the Japanese version of the PRO-CTCAE had acceptable reliability and validity for common and clinically important symptoms. read more read less

Topics:

Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (67%)67% related to the paper, Criterion validity (51%)51% related to the paper, Adverse effect (51%)51% related to the paper
View PDF
231 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1186/S41687-017-0012-7
Japanese translation and linguistic validation of the US National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

Abstract:

The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) has developed the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) to capture patients’ self-reported symptomatic adverse events in cancer clinical trials. The aim of this study was to develop and linguistically validate a Japanese trans... The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) has developed the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) to capture patients’ self-reported symptomatic adverse events in cancer clinical trials. The aim of this study was to develop and linguistically validate a Japanese translation of PRO-CTCAE. Forward- and back-translations were produced, and an independent review was performed by the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) Executive Committee and the US NCI. We then conducted cognitive interviews with 21 patients undergoing cancer treatment. Participants were asked to complete the PRO-CTCAE and were interviewed using semi-structured scripts and predetermined probes to investigate whether any items were difficult to understand or answer. The interviews were recorded and transcribed, and a thematic analysis was performed. The data were split into two categories: 1) remarks on the items and 2) remarks on the questionnaire in general. Twenty-one cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy or hormone therapy were interviewed at the University of Tokyo Hospital and the Kansai Medical University Hirakata Hospital during 2011 and 2012. Thirty-three PRO-CTCAE items were evaluated as “difficult to understand,” and 65 items were evaluated as “difficult to answer” by at least one respondent. However, on further investigation, only 24 remarks were categorized as “comprehension difficulties” or “clarity” issues. Most of these remarks concerned patients’ difficulties with rating their experience of individual symptomatic events. The study provides preliminary evidence supporting the linguistic validity of the Japanese version of PRO-CTCAE. Further cognitive interviewing is warranted for PRO-CTCAE items relating to sexuality and anxiety and for response options on severity attribute items. read more read less

Topics:

Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (57%)57% related to the paper, Linguistic validation (53%)53% related to the paper, Cognitive interview (51%)51% related to the paper
View PDF
172 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1186/S41687-018-0061-6
How do patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support clinician-patient communication and patient care? A realist synthesis

Abstract:

In this paper, we report the findings of a realist synthesis that aimed to understand how and in what circumstances patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support patient-clinician communication and subsequent care processes and outcomes in clinical care We tested two overarching programme theories: (1) PROMs completion pr... In this paper, we report the findings of a realist synthesis that aimed to understand how and in what circumstances patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support patient-clinician communication and subsequent care processes and outcomes in clinical care We tested two overarching programme theories: (1) PROMs completion prompts a process of self-reflection and supports patients to raise issues with clinicians and (2) PROMs scores raise clinicians’ awareness of patients’ problems and prompts discussion and action We examined how the structure of the PROM and care context shaped the ways in which PROMs support clinician-patient communication and subsequent care processes PROMs completion prompts patients to reflect on their health and gives them permission to raise issues with clinicians However, clinicians found standardised PROMs completion during patient assessments sometimes constrained rather than supported communication In response, clinicians adapted their use of PROMs to render them compatible with the ongoing management of patient relationships Individualised PROMs supported dialogue by enabling the patient to tell their story In oncology, PROMs completion outside of the consultation enabled clinicians to identify problematic symptoms when the PROM acted as a substitute rather than addition to the clinical encounter and when the PROM focused on symptoms and side effects, rather than health related quality of life (HRQoL) Patients did not always feel it was appropriate to discuss emotional, functional or HRQoL issues with doctors and doctors did not perceive this was within their remit This paper makes two important contributions to the literature First, our findings show that PROMs completion is not a neutral act of information retrieval but can change how patients think about their condition Second, our findings reveal that the ways in which clinicians use PROMs is shaped by their relationships with patients and professional roles and boundaries Future research should examine how PROMs completion and feedback shapes and is influenced by the process of building relationships with patients, rather than just their impact on information exchange and decision making read more read less
View PDF
118 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1186/S41687-018-0072-3
The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: a systematic review of reviews
Alexis Foster1, Liz Croot1, John Brazier1, Janet Harris1, Alicia O’Cathain1

Abstract:

There is increasing interest in using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) within organisations delivering health related services. However, organisations have had mixed success in implementing PROMs and there is little understanding about why this may be. Thus, the purpose of this study was to identify the facilitators ... There is increasing interest in using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) within organisations delivering health related services. However, organisations have had mixed success in implementing PROMs and there is little understanding about why this may be. Thus, the purpose of this study was to identify the facilitators and barriers to implementing PROMs in organisations. A systematic review of reviews was undertaken. Searches were conducted of five electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, during the week of the 20th February 2017. Additional search methods included website searching and reference checking. To be included, a publication had to be a review of the literature, describe its methods and include information related to implementing PROMs. The reviews were extracted using a standardised form and assessed for their risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool. The findings were synthesised using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (PROSPERO) (CRD42017057491). Initially 2047 records were identified. After assessing eligibility, six reviews were included. These reviews varied in their review type and focus. Different issues arose at distinct stages of the implementation process. Organisations needed to invest time and resources in two key stages early in the implementation process: ‘designing’ the processes for using PROMs within an organisation; and ‘preparing’ an organisation and its staff. The ‘designing’ stage involved organisations planning not just which PROMs to use and how to administer them, but also how the data would be used for clinical purposes. The ‘preparing’ stage involved getting an organisation and its staff ready to use PROMs, particularly persuading clinicians of the validity and value of PROMs, delivering training, and developing electronic systems. Having an implementation lead overseeing the process and developing the process based on feedback were also identified as facilitating implementation. Organisations implementing PROMs need to invest time and resources in ‘designing’ the PROMs strategy and ‘preparing’ the organisation to use PROMs. Focusing on these earlier stages may prevent problems arising when PROMs are used in practice. read more read less

Topics:

Systematic review (54%)54% related to the paper, Implementation research (50%)50% related to the paper
View PDF
80 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1186/S41687-017-0003-8
Two-item PROMIS® global physical and mental health scales
Ron D. Hays1, Benjamin D. Schalet2, Karen L. Spritzer1, David Cella2

Abstract:

Self-reports of health provide useful information about function and well-being that can improve communication between patients and clinicians. Global health items provide summary information that are predictive of health care utilization and mortality. There is a need for parsimonious global health scales for use in large sa... Self-reports of health provide useful information about function and well-being that can improve communication between patients and clinicians. Global health items provide summary information that are predictive of health care utilization and mortality. There is a need for parsimonious global health scales for use in large sample surveys. This study evaluates the reliability and validity of brief measures of global physical health and mental health in the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement and Information System (PROMIS®) project. A total of 21,133 persons included in the PROMIS development sample: 52% female; 82% White, 9% Black, 9% Hispanic; median age of 50 years. We identified two global physical health items (GPH-2) and two global mental health items (GMH-2) with highest discrimination parameters and compared their reliabilities and construct validity to that of the original 4-item scales (GPH-4 and GMH-4) and a single global health item (Global01). Internal consistency reliability was 0.73 for the GPH-2 (versus 0.81 for the GPH-4) and 0.81 for the GMH-2 (versus 0.86 for the GMH-4). Marginal reliabilities were 0.55 for Global01, 0.70 for GPH-2, 0.79 for GPH-4, 0.80 for GMH-2, and 0.86 for GMH-4. The product-moment correlation between the GPH-2 and GPH-4 was 0.94 and between GMH-2 and GMH-4 was 0.97. The 2-item and 4-item versions of the scales had similar correlations with PROMIS domain scores, the EQ-5D-3L and comorbidities, but the 4-item scales were more strongly correlated with these measures. Adding a single item to a large cross-sectional population survey can cost as much as $100,000. The 2-item variants of the PROMIS global health scales reduce the cost of use on national surveys by 50%, a substantial cost savings. These briefer scales are also more practical for use in clinical practice. The 2-item versions of the PROMIS global health scales display adequate reliability for group comparisons and their associations with other indicators of health are similar to that of the original 4-item scales. The briefer scales are psychometrically sound and reduce burden of survey administration. read more read less

Topics:

Global mental health (55%)55% related to the paper, Health care (55%)55% related to the paper, Global health (53%)53% related to the paper, Construct validity (51%)51% related to the paper, Mental health (50%)50% related to the paper
View PDF
49 Citations
Author Pic

SciSpace is a very innovative solution to the formatting problem and existing providers, such as Mendeley or Word did not really evolve in recent years.

- Andreas Frutiger, Researcher, ETH Zurich, Institute for Biomedical Engineering

Get MS-Word and LaTeX output to any Journal within seconds
1
Choose a template
Select a template from a library of 40,000+ templates
2
Import a MS-Word file or start fresh
It takes only few seconds to import
3
View and edit your final output
SciSpace will automatically format your output to meet journal guidelines
4
Submit directly or Download
Submit to journal directly or Download in PDF, MS Word or LaTeX

(Before submission check for plagiarism via Turnitin)

clock Less than 3 minutes

What to expect from SciSpace?

Speed and accuracy over MS Word

''

With SciSpace, you do not need a word template for Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes.

It automatically formats your research paper to Springer formatting guidelines and citation style.

You can download a submission ready research paper in pdf, LaTeX and docx formats.

Time comparison

Time taken to format a paper and Compliance with guidelines

Plagiarism Reports via Turnitin

SciSpace has partnered with Turnitin, the leading provider of Plagiarism Check software.

Using this service, researchers can compare submissions against more than 170 million scholarly articles, a database of 70+ billion current and archived web pages. How Turnitin Integration works?

Turnitin Stats
Publisher Logos

Freedom from formatting guidelines

One editor, 100K journal formats – world's largest collection of journal templates

With such a huge verified library, what you need is already there.

publisher-logos

Easy support from all your favorite tools

Automatically format and order your citations and bibliography in a click.

SciSpace allows imports from all reference managers like Mendeley, Zotero, Endnote, Google Scholar etc.

Frequently asked questions

1. Can I write Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes in LaTeX?

Absolutely not! Our tool has been designed to help you focus on writing. You can write your entire paper as per the Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes guidelines and auto format it.

2. Do you follow the Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes guidelines?

Yes, the template is compliant with the Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes guidelines. Our experts at SciSpace ensure that. If there are any changes to the journal's guidelines, we'll change our algorithm accordingly.

3. Can I cite my article in multiple styles in Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes?

Of course! We support all the top citation styles, such as APA style, MLA style, Vancouver style, Harvard style, and Chicago style. For example, when you write your paper and hit autoformat, our system will automatically update your article as per the Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes citation style.

4. Can I use the Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes templates for free?

Sign up for our free trial, and you'll be able to use all our features for seven days. You'll see how helpful they are and how inexpensive they are compared to other options, Especially for Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes.

5. Can I use a manuscript in Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes that I have written in MS Word?

Yes. You can choose the right template, copy-paste the contents from the word document, and click on auto-format. Once you're done, you'll have a publish-ready paper Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes that you can download at the end.

6. How long does it usually take you to format my papers in Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes?

It only takes a matter of seconds to edit your manuscript. Besides that, our intuitive editor saves you from writing and formatting it in Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes.

7. Where can I find the template for the Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes?

It is possible to find the Word template for any journal on Google. However, why use a template when you can write your entire manuscript on SciSpace , auto format it as per Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes's guidelines and download the same in Word, PDF and LaTeX formats? Give us a try!.

8. Can I reformat my paper to fit the Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes's guidelines?

Of course! You can do this using our intuitive editor. It's very easy. If you need help, our support team is always ready to assist you.

9. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes an online tool or is there a desktop version?

SciSpace's Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes is currently available as an online tool. We're developing a desktop version, too. You can request (or upvote) any features that you think would be helpful for you and other researchers in the "feature request" section of your account once you've signed up with us.

10. I cannot find my template in your gallery. Can you create it for me like Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes?

Sure. You can request any template and we'll have it setup within a few days. You can find the request box in Journal Gallery on the right side bar under the heading, "Couldn't find the format you were looking for like Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes?”

11. What is the output that I would get after using Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes?

After writing your paper autoformatting in Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, you can download it in multiple formats, viz., PDF, Docx, and LaTeX.

12. Is Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes's impact factor high enough that I should try publishing my article there?

To be honest, the answer is no. The impact factor is one of the many elements that determine the quality of a journal. Few of these factors include review board, rejection rates, frequency of inclusion in indexes, and Eigenfactor. You need to assess all these factors before you make your final call.

13. What is Sherpa RoMEO Archiving Policy for Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes?

SHERPA/RoMEO Database

We extracted this data from Sherpa Romeo to help researchers understand the access level of this journal in accordance with the Sherpa Romeo Archiving Policy for Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes. The table below indicates the level of access a journal has as per Sherpa Romeo's archiving policy.

RoMEO Colour Archiving policy
Green Can archive pre-print and post-print or publisher's version/PDF
Blue Can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing) or publisher's version/PDF
Yellow Can archive pre-print (ie pre-refereeing)
White Archiving not formally supported
FYI:
  1. Pre-prints as being the version of the paper before peer review and
  2. Post-prints as being the version of the paper after peer-review, with revisions having been made.

14. What are the most common citation types In Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes?

The 5 most common citation types in order of usage for Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes are:.

S. No. Citation Style Type
1. Author Year
2. Numbered
3. Numbered (Superscripted)
4. Author Year (Cited Pages)
5. Footnote

15. How do I submit my article to the Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes?

It is possible to find the Word template for any journal on Google. However, why use a template when you can write your entire manuscript on SciSpace , auto format it as per Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes's guidelines and download the same in Word, PDF and LaTeX formats? Give us a try!.

16. Can I download Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Endnote format?

Yes, SciSpace provides this functionality. After signing up, you would need to import your existing references from Word or Bib file to SciSpace. Then SciSpace would allow you to download your references in Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Endnote style according to Elsevier guidelines.

Fast and reliable,
built for complaince.

Instant formatting to 100% publisher guidelines on - SciSpace.

Available only on desktops 🖥

No word template required

Typset automatically formats your research paper to Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes formatting guidelines and citation style.

Verifed journal formats

One editor, 100K journal formats.
With the largest collection of verified journal formats, what you need is already there.

Trusted by academicians

I spent hours with MS word for reformatting. It was frustrating - plain and simple. With SciSpace, I can draft my manuscripts and once it is finished I can just submit. In case, I have to submit to another journal it is really just a button click instead of an afternoon of reformatting.

Andreas Frutiger
Researcher & Ex MS Word user
Use this template