Dataset Information

Factors in Randomized Controlled Trials Reported to Impact the Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Into Routine Care: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are tools that enable patients to directly report their own assessments of well-being, or symptoms, in a structured and consistent way. Despite the usefulness of PROMs in optimizing health outcomes, their use in clinical practice is not routine. PROMs are complex to integrate into the clinical setting, with many elements potentially impacting on the success of implementation. For this reason, a protocol has been developed to guide a systematic review to collate information on implementation as presented in the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to date. OBJECTIVE:The primary objective of this systematic review is to identify and synthesize factors available from RCT data about the fidelity of PROM interventions in clinical practice. The secondary objective will be an assessment of how implementation factors impact fidelity outcomes. METHODS:Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting standards will be followed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature via OvidSP will be accessed using a defined search strategy. Grey literature and ClinicalTrials.gov will be reviewed for unpublished studies. Data extraction will be done to identify fidelity and factors impacting implementation, summarized using a narrative synthesis. An evidence-based implementation science framework will assist in identifying potential elements of importance and their effect on the process and outcomes of implementation. A meta-analysis to assess the impact of implementation factors will be attempted. A Cochrane risk of bias tool will be used. RESULTS:This protocol has received funding, and searches of databases will commence at the end of May 2019. It is planned that this systematic review will be finalized for publication in (December) 2019. CONCLUSIONS:Applying an implementation science evidence-based framework to the published literature may identify factors present in the data that impact on the implementation of PROMs into routine clinical care. This systematic review aims to improve understanding of how these factors impact the fidelity of this intervention, so that PROMs can be more effectively used in the care of patients. This systematic review can also offer more detailed information about the process and outcomes of successful implementation of PROMs. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):PRR1-10.2196/14579.

SUBMITTER: Roberts NA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6904897 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Factors in Randomized Controlled Trials Reported to Impact the Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Into Routine Care: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

Roberts Natasha Anne NA Alexander Kimberly K Wyld David D Janda Monika M

JMIR research protocols 20191126 11

<h4>Background</h4>Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are tools that enable patients to directly report their own assessments of well-being, or symptoms, in a structured and consistent way. Despite the usefulness of PROMs in optimizing health outcomes, their use in clinical practice is not routine. PROMs are complex to integrate into the clinical setting, with many elements potentially impacting on the success of implementation. For this reason, a protocol has been developed to guide a sy ...[more]

PMID: 31769763

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceGender-affirming care is a key clinical area that can benefit from implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Identifying barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation is needed to develop an evidence-based implementation strategy.ObjectiveTo identify (1) PROMs previously implemented for gender-affirming care and constructs measured, (2) how patients completed PROMs and how results were reported and used, and (3) barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation.Evidence reviewIn this systematic review, PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from inception to October 25, 2021, and updated on December 16, 2022. Gray literature was searched through gray literature database, online search engine, and targeted website searching. Inclusion criteria were (1) original articles of (2) a formally developed PROM or ad hoc instrument administered for gender-affirming care to (3) patients accessing gender-affirming care. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was used to evaluate quality of included studies. This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021233080).FindingsIn total, 286 studies were included, representing 85 395 transgender and nonbinary patients from more than 30 countries. A total of 205 different PROMs were used in gender-affirming care. No studies described using an implementation science theory, model, or framework to support PROM deployment. Key barriers to PROM implementation included issues with evidence strength and quality of the PROM, engaging participants, and PROM complexity. Key enablers of PROM implementation included using PROMs validated for gender-affirming care, implementing PROMs able to be deployed online or in person, implementing PROMs that are shorter and reduce patient burden, engaging key stakeholders and participants as part of developing an implementation plan, and organizational climate.Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review of barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation in gender-affirming care, PROM implementation was inconsistent and did not follow evidence-based approaches in implementation science. There was also a lack of patient input in creating implementation strategies, suggesting a need for patient-centered approaches to PROM implementation. Frameworks created from these results can be used to develop evidence-based PROM implementation initiatives for gender-affirming care and have potential generalizability for other clinical areas interested in implementing PROMs.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The successful implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical routine faces many challenges, first and foremost the lack of consideration thereof in the patient care process. The aim of this study will be to first identify relevant barriers and facilitators and then design suitable implementation strategies which will be evaluated to improve the effectiveness of a PRO measure assessment in inpatient and outpatient cancer routine care. METHODS:During the preparation phase, interviews with oncological patients (N = 28) and medical staff (N = 4) as well as focus groups with medical staff (N = 18) across five different departments caring for cancer patients were conducted. On the basis of these, qualitative content analysis revealed relevant barriers and facilitators for implementation of PROs in cancer care. Subsequently, implementation strategies and a model of implementation were developed. In the study phase, implementation strategies will be evaluated based on nine different implementation outcomes in five different oncological clinics. Evaluation of the implementation process will take place during three months in each clinic and data will be conducted pre, while and post implementation of the PRO measure. Therefore a sample size of 60 participants of whom 30 staff members and 30 participants will be questioned using existing and newly developed implementation outcome evaluation instruments. DISCUSSION:Key to improving the effectiveness of PRO assessment in the time-critical clinical environment is the utilization of easy-to-use, electronic PRO questionnaires directly linked to patients' records thereby improving consideration of PROs in patient care. In order to validate the effectiveness of this implementation process further, an evaluation parallel to implementation following an observational study design with a mixed-methods approach will be conducted. This study could contribute to the development of adequate evaluation processes of implementation of PROs to foster sustainable integration of PRO measures into routine cancer care. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This study was registered at Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/y7xce/).

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in clinical quality registries, for people with cutaneous melanoma, to inform a new Australian Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry; and describe opportunities and challenges of routine PROM/PREM collection, especially in primary care.DesignSystematic review.Primary and secondary outcome measuresWhich PROMs and PREMs are used in clinical quality registries for people with cutaneous melanoma, how they are collected, frequency of collection, participant recruitment methods and funding models for each registry.Results1134 studies were identified from MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects databases and TUFTS Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, alongside grey literature, from database inception to 5th February 2020. Following screening, 14 studies were included, identifying four relevant registries: Dutch Melanoma Registry, Adelphi Real-World Disease-Specific Programme (Melanoma), Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship Registry, and Cancer Experience Registry. These used seven PROMs: EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Functional Assessment of Cancer-General (FACT-G) and FACT-Melanoma (FACT-M), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cancer 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), Fatigue Assessment Scale Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Information System-29 and one PREM; EORTC QLQ-Information Module 26. PROMs/PREMs in registries were reported to improve transparency of care; facilitate clinical auditing for quality assessment; enable cost-effectiveness analyses and create large-scale research platforms. Challenges included resource burden for data entry and potential collection bias toward younger, more affluent respondents. Feedback from patients with melanoma highlighted the relevance of PROMs/PREMs in assessing patient outcomes and patient experiences.ConclusionsClinical registries indicate PROMs/PREMs for melanoma care can be incorporated and address important gaps, however cost and collection bias may limit generalisability.Prospero registration numberCRD42018086737.

Project description:Background and objectivesPatient-reported outcome measures invite patients to self-report aspects of their quality of life and have been reported to enhance communication with clinicians. We aimed to examine how routine use of patient-reported outcome measures in in-center hemodialysis units influenced patient-clinician communication.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsA concurrent, longitudinal, mixed-methods approach was used. We used data from a cluster randomized controlled trial of 17 hemodialysis units in northern Alberta that introduced a patient-reported outcome measures intervention. Patient-clinician communication was assessed using a modified Communication Assessment Tool. Using interpretive description, we explored patients' and nurses' perceptions of communication pertaining to routine patient-reported outcome measure use. Through purposeful sampling, we interviewed ten patients and eight nurses and conducted six observations in the dialysis units, which were documented in field notes. We reviewed 779 patient responses to open-ended survey questions from randomized controlled trial data. Qualitative data were thematically analyzed.ResultsOverall, patient-reported outcome measure use did not substantively improve patient-clinician communication. There was a small positive change in mean total Communication Assessment Tool scores (range, 1-5) from baseline to 12 months in patient-reported outcome measure use units (0.25) but little difference from control group units that did not use patient-reported outcome measures (0.21). The qualitative findings provide in-depth insights into why patient-reported outcome measure use did not improve patient-clinician communication. The purpose of patient-reported outcome measure use was not always understood by patients and clinicians; patient-reported outcome measures were not implemented as originally intended in the trial, despite clinician training; there were challenges using patient-reported outcome measures as a means to communicate; and patient-reported outcome measure use was perceived to have limited value.ConclusionsWhile patient-reported outcome measures use did not improve patient-clinician communication, qualitative data suggest implementation challenges, including limited clarity of purpose and perceived limited value, that may have limited the effectiveness of the intervention.

Project description:IntroductionThe impact of stroke-related impairment on activities of daily living may vary between patients, and can only be estimated by applying patient-reported outcome measures. The International Consortium for Health Outcome Measurement has developed a standard set of instruments that combine clinical and longitudinal patient-reported outcome measures for stroke. The present study was designed (1) to implement and evaluate the feasibility of the use of it as a consistent outcome measure in clinical routine at the stroke center of a German university hospital, (2) to characterize impairment in everyday life caused by stroke, and (3) to identify predictive factors associated with patient-relevant outcomes.MethodsWe plan to enroll 1040 consecutive patients with the diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or intracerebral hemorrhage in a prospective observational study. Demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, and living situation are assessed at inpatient surveillance. At 90?days and 12?months after inclusion, follow-up assessments take place including the Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10-Question Short Form (PROMIS-10), the Patient- Health Questionnaire-4, and the simplified modified Ranking Scale questionnaire. The acceptance and feasibility (1) will be assessed by a process evaluation through qualitative semi-structured interviews with clinical staff and patients and quantitative analyses of the data quality evaluating practicability, acceptance, adoption, and fidelity to protocol. The primary outcome of objective 2 and 3 is health-related quality of life measured with the PROMIS-10. Additional outcomes are depressive and anxiety symptoms and patient participation in their social roles. Patient-reported outcomes will be assessed in their longitudinal course using (generalized) mixed regressions. Exploratory descriptive and inference statistical analyses will be used to find patterns of patient characteristics and predictive factors of the outcome domains.PerspectiveThe results will describe and further establish the evaluation of stroke patients of a stroke center by standardized PROMs in everyday life.Trial registrationThe trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03795948). Approval of the local ethics committee (Ethik-Kommission der Ärztekammer Hamburg) has been obtained.

Project description:BackgroundThere is growing interest in the use of routine patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to influence the care of individual patients with stroke. However, there are significant gaps in our understanding as to how PROMs influence post-stroke patient care and clinical practice. This is due to factors including the number of purported uses for PROMs and that PROMs are complex interventions, which attempt to stimulate varied actions or behaviours. Therefore, the objective of this realist synthesis is to offer theory-based explanations as to how PROMs influence post-stroke clinical practice and patient care.MethodsThis is a protocol for a realist synthesis, which involves three distinct phases: theory building (phase 1), theory testing and refinement (phase 2) and synthesis (phase 3). Phase 1 will develop initial rough programme theories (IRPTs), through literature searches (from January 2000 onwards) of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and the grey literature. Only secondary sources will be included that contribute to the development of IRPTs. Only two IRPTs, prioritised by the stakeholder group, will be taken forward to be tested and refined during phase 2. Further novel searches will be employed in phase 2, utilising the same criteria as phase 1; however, phase 2 searches will not utilise grey literature searches, and only primary research studies that contribute to the refinement of programme theories under investigation will be included. Two independent reviewers will screen and select all returned results. The reviewers will code and annotate relevant sources, resulting in 'fragments' to be extracted and graded based on the richness of their contribution to explanation and causal insight. Further, these fragments will be organised into 'Context-Mechanism-Outcome' configurations. Phase 3 of the review will involve the synthesis of context-mechanism-outcome configurations to form middle-range theory-based explanations and developed logic models for stakeholders to understand how PROMs in post-stroke clinical practice and patient care work for whom, how and under what circumstances.DiscussionThe resulting realist synthesis will provide guidance on the implementation of PROMs within routine post-stroke clinical practice and patient care and act as a touchstone for further testing and refinement of PROMs programmes.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020138649 .

Dataset Information

Factors in Randomized Controlled Trials Reported to Impact the Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Into Routine Care: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

Publications

Factors in Randomized Controlled Trials Reported to Impact the Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Into Routine Care: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets