Patient-Reported Outcomes for Pediatric Adherence and Self-Management: A Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
Treatment adherence is approximately 50% across pediatric conditions. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are the most common method of measuring adherence and self-management across research and clinical contexts. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate adherence and self-management PROs, including measures of adherence behaviors, adherence barriers, disease management skills, and treatment responsibility.Methods
Following PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews, literature searches were performed. Measures meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria were evaluated using Hunsley and Mash's (2018) criteria for evidence-based assessment across several domains (e.g., internal consistency, interrater reliability, test-retest reliability, content validity, construct validity, validity generalization, treatment sensitivity, and clinical utility). Rating categories were adapted for the present study to include the original categories of adequate, good, and excellent, as well as an additional category of below adequate.Results
After screening 172 articles, 50 PROs across a variety of pediatric conditions were reviewed and evaluated. Most measures demonstrated at least adequate content validity (n = 44), internal consistency (n = 34), and validity generalization (n = 45). Findings were mixed regarding interrater reliability, test-retest reliability, and treatment sensitivity. Less than half of the measures (n = 22) exhibited adequate, good, or excellent construct validity.Conclusions
Although use of adherence and self-management PROs is widespread across several pediatric conditions, few PROs achieved good or excellent ratings based on rigorous psychometric standards. Validation and replication studies with larger, more diverse samples are needed. Future research should consider the use of emerging technologies to enhance the feasibility of broad implementation.
SUBMITTER: Plevinsky JM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7081940 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The aim of this review was to summarize literature in view of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments for glaucoma and provide guidance on how outcomes are best assessed based on evidence about their content and validity. A systematic literature review was performed on papers describing the developmental process and/or psychometric properties of glaucoma or vision-specific PRO-instruments. Each of them was assessed on their adherence to a framework of quality criteria. Fifty-three articles were identified addressing 27 PRO-instruments. In all, 18 PRO's were developed for glaucoma and 9 for diverse ophthalmologic conditions. Seven instruments addressed functional status, 11 instruments quality of life and 9 instruments disease and treatment-related factors. Most of the instruments demonstrated only partially adherence to predefined quality standards. The tools for assessing functional status were of poor quality, while the Glaucoma Quality of Life Questionnaire and the Vision Quality of Life Index were well-developed QoL measures, yet only validated using classical techniques. The Rasch-scaled QoL-tools, IVI and VCM1 need to improve their item-content for glaucoma patients. The questionnaires to measure adherence should improve their validity and the Treatment Satisfaction Survey for Intra Ocular Pressure pops out as the highest quality tool for measuring topical treatment side effects. This review revealed that most PRO-instruments demonstrated poor developmental quality, more specifically a lack of conceptual framework and item generation strategies not involving the patients' perspective. Psychometric characteristics were mostly tested using classical validation techniques.
| S-EPMC3171264 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPatient self-management support is recognised as a key component of chronic care. Education and training for health professionals has been shown in the literature to be associated with better uptake, implementation and effectiveness of self-management programs, however, there is no clear evidence regarding whether this training results in improved health outcomes for patients with chronic conditions.MethodsA systematic review was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines using the Cochrane Library, PubMEd, ERIC, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web searches, Hand searches and Bibliographies. Articles published from inception to September 1st, 2013 were included. Systematic reviews, Meta-analysis, Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Controlled clinical trials, Interrupted time series and Controlled before and after studies, which reported on primary care health professionals' continuing education or evidence-based medicine/education on patient self-management for any chronic condition, were included. A minimum of two reviewers participated independently at each stage of review.ResultsFrom 7533 abstracts found, only two papers provided evidence on the effectiveness of self-management education for primary healthcare professionals in terms of measured outcomes in patients. These two articles show improvement in patient outcomes for chronic back pain and diabetes based on RCTs. The educational interventions with health professionals spanned a range of techniques and modalities but both RCTs included a motivational interviewing component.ConclusionsBefore and up to 2 years after the incorporation of patient empowerment for self-management into the WONCA Europe definition of general practice, there was a scarcity of high quality evidence showing improved outcomes for patients as a result of educating health professionals in patient self-management of chronic conditions.
| S-EPMC6164169 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Multiple barriers can influence adherence to antihypertensive medications. The aim of this systematic review was to determine what adherence barriers were included in each instrument and to describe the psychometric properties of the identified surveys. Barriers were characterized using the World Health Organization (WHO) Multidimensional Adherence Model with patient, condition, therapy, socioeconomic, and health care system/team-related barriers. Five databases (Medline, Embase, Health and Psychological Instruments, CINHAL, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts [IPA]) were searched from 1980 to September 2011. Our search identified 1712 citations; 74 articles met inclusion criteria and 51 unique surveys were identified. The Morisky Medication Adherence Scale was the most commonly used survey. Only 20 surveys (39%) have established reliability and validity evidence. According to the WHO Adherence Model domains, patient-related barriers were most commonly addressed, while condition, therapy, and socioeconomic barriers were underrepresented. The complexity of adherence behavior requires robust self-report measurements and the inclusion of barriers relevant to each unique patient population and intervention.
| S-EPMC8108877 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAlignment between pediatric patients and caregiver perspectives on patient-reported outcome (PRO) data is contingent upon context. We aimed to assess agreement between patient and caregiver responses to a series of perioperative domains.MethodsAgreement between pediatric patients and caregiver responses to preoperative and postoperative surveys about surgery preparedness, perioperative expectations, PRO Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures for overall health and pain, and reaching milestones gathered as part of an ongoing clinical trial for children undergoing gastrointestinal surgery, was evaluated. Gwet's AC and Spearman's correlation coefficients were calculated, as appropriate, to assess agreement.ResultsOf 209 enrolled patients, 65 (31.1%) dyads completed all three surveys and were included. For the domains of education, expectations, and comprehension, patients and caregivers had good agreement with Gwet AC1 with values of 0.80, 0.61, and 0.64, respectively. For milestones, patients and caregivers had very good agreement (Gwet AC1 of 0.95). Milestones measured whether patients achieved certain goals within a prespecified time, including enteral intake (Gwet AC1 0.91 and 0.92 respectively), transition to oral pain medication (Gwet AC1 0.94), ambulation (Gwet AC1 1.00), and return of bowel function (Gwet AC1 0.97). There was moderate to strong agreement between patients and caregivers on PROMIS pain questions (Spearman's correlation: 0.71 preoperatively and 0.51 postoperatively). On PROMIS global health questions, there was strong agreement (0.69 preoperatively and 0.65 postoperatively).ConclusionsPediatric patient and caregiver agreement on perioperative survey items ranged from moderate to strong. Caregivers' responses may be acceptable when some patient-level responses are not available.
| S-EPMC10232682 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecent events in health care reform have brought national attention to integrating patient experiences and expectations into quality metrics. Few studies have comprehensively evaluated the effect of patient expectations on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after surgery. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the available literature describing the relationship between patient expectations and postoperative PROs.MethodsWe performed a search of the literature published before November 1, 2012. Articles were included in the review if (1) primary data were presented, (2) patient expectations regarding a surgical procedure were measured, (3) PROs were measured, and (4) the relationship between patient expectations and PROs was specifically examined. PROs were categorized into 5 subgroups: Satisfaction, quality of life (QOL), disability, mood disorder, and pain. We examined each study to determine the relationship between patient expectations and PROs as well as study quality.ResultsFrom the initial literature search yielding 1,708 studies, 60 articles were included. Fulfillment of expectations was associated with improved PROs among 24 studies. Positive expectations were correlated with improved PROs for 28 studies (47%), and poorer PROs for 9 studies (15%). Eighteen studies reported that fulfillment of expectations was correlated with improved patient satisfaction, and 10 studies identified that positive expectations were correlated with improved postoperative. Finally, patients with positive preoperative expectations reported less pain (8 studies) and disability (15 studies) compared with patients with negative preoperative expectations.ConclusionPatient expectations are inconsistently correlated with PROs after surgery, and there is no accepted method to capture perioperative expectations. Future efforts to rigorously measure expectations and explore their influence on postoperative outcomes can inform clinicians and policymakers seeking to integrate PROs into measures of surgical quality.
| S-EPMC4170731 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGaucher's disease (GD), a rare condition, represents the most common lysosomal storage disorder. The cardinal manifestations of GD are fatigue, hepatosplenomegaly, anemia, thrombocytopenia, bone pain, and bone infarction, thereby culminating in a marked deterioration of patients' quality of life (QoL). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) offer valuable insights into the impact of GD on patients' QoL and symptoms. This systematic review aimed to identify and analyze PROs and outcome measures in GD patients.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science Core Collections, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Wan Fang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM). The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using a mixed methods assessment tool.ResultsA total of 33 studies were identified, encompassing 24 distinct patient-reported outcome instruments, with the most frequently employed instrument being the SF-36. The study designs included eighteen cross-sectional studies, seven pre- and post-intervention investigations, three randomized controlled trials, two cohort studies, two qualitative inquiries, and one validation study. These studies explored diverse domains such as the QoL and cardinal symptoms (e.g., fatigue, pain, bleeding, cognition, social relationships, and psychological functioning) in patients with GD. Furthermore, significant attention was directed towards the appraisal of the therapeutic benefits of various interventions in patients with GD. A novel GD-specific instrument has also been developed, which has two applied versions: a 24-item variant for routine clinical monitoring and a 17-item form for use in clinical trials.ConclusionPROs have garnered increased attention and concern in the realm of GD. Despite this progress, it is noteworthy that the instruments used to measure PROs in GD are still predominantly generic instruments. While researchers have endeavored to develop and validate a disease-specific instrument, currently the use of this instrument is limited. Owing to several challenges, including the small number of patients, heterogeneity of the disease, and cross-regional discrepancies in study findings, GD poses substantial difficulties in the measurement of QoL and development of instruments. Consequently, patients with GD require more dependable measurement instruments that accurately reflect their QoL, efficacy of treatment, and facilitate healthcare decision-making.
| S-EPMC10463869 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMulti-cancer early detection tests have been developed to enable earlier detection of multiple cancer types through screening. As reflected by patient-reported outcomes (PROs), the psychosocial impact of cancer screening is not yet clear. Our aim is to evaluate the impact of cancer screening through PRO assessment.MethodsA systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and reference lists of articles from January 2000 to August 2020 for relevant publications assessing the psychosocial impact of cancer screening before and within 1 year after screening in the general asymptomatic population, including following receipt of results. Studies focused on diagnostic evaluation or involving patients previously diagnosed with cancer were excluded.ResultsIn total, 31 studies (12 randomized controlled trials; 19 observational studies) were included, reflecting PRO assessments associated with lung, breast, colorectal, anal, ovarian, cervical, and prostate cancer screening procedures. The most commonly assessed construct was symptoms of anxiety, using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Cancer-specific distress and worry were also assessed using a broad range of measures. Overall, individuals tolerated screening procedures well with no major psychosocial effects. Of note, increases in symptoms of anxiety and levels of distress and worry were generally found prior to communication of screening results and following communication of indeterminate or positive results that required further testing. These negative psychosocial effects were, however, not long-lasting and returned to baseline relatively soon after screening. Furthermore, individuals with higher cancer risk, such as current smokers and those with a family history of cancer, tended to have higher levels of anxiety and distress throughout the screening process, including following negative or indeterminate results.ConclusionsThe psychosocial impact of cancer screening is relatively low overall and short-lived, even following false-positive test results. Individuals with a higher risk of cancer tend to experience more symptoms of anxiety and distress during the screening process; thus, more attention to this group is recommended.
| S-EPMC8886782 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLymphoma treatment can lead to long-term consequences such as fatigue, infertility and organ damage. In clinical trials, survival outcomes, clinical response and toxicity are extensively reported while the assessment of treatment on quality of life (QoL) and symptoms is often lacking.ObjectiveWe evaluated the use and frequency of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and their consistency of reporting.MethodsMEDLINE, CENTRAL and trial registries for RCTs investigating HL were systematically searched from 01/01/2016 to 31/05/2022. Following trial selection, trial, patient characteristics and outcome data on the use of PRO measures (PROMs) and reporting of PROs using a pre-defined extraction form were extracted. To assess reporting consistency, trial registries, protocols and publications were compared.ResultsWe identified 4,222 records. Following screening, a total of 317 reports were eligible for full-text evaluation. One hundred sixty-six reports of 51 ongoing/completed trials were included, of which 41% of trials were completed and 49% were ongoing based on registry entries. Full-text or abstract were available for 33 trials. Seventy percent of trials were conducted in the newly diagnosed disease setting, the majority with advanced HL. In 32 trials with published follow-up data, the median follow-up was 5.2 years. Eighteen (35%) completed/ongoing trials had mentioned PRO assessment in registry entries, protocol or publications. Twelve trials (67%) had published results and only 6 trials (50%) reported on PROs in part with the exception of 1 trial where PROs were evaluated as secondary/exploratory outcome. The most referenced global PROM was the EORTC-QLQ-C30 (12 studies), the EQ-5D (3 studies) and the FACT-Neurotoxicity (3 studies). FACT-Lymphoma, a disease-specific PROM for non-HL was mentioned in one ongoing trial. None of the trials referenced the EORTC QLQ-HL27, another disease-specific PROM developed specifically for HL patient's QoL assessment.DiscussionsOnly one-third of RCTs in HL report PROs as an outcome and only half present the outcome in subsequent publications, showcasing the underreporting of PROs in trials. Disease-specific PROMs are underutilized in the assessment of QoL in HL patients. Guidance on the assessment of PROs is needed to inform on comprehensive outcomes important to patients.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=391552, identifier CRD42023391552.
| S-EPMC10965683 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In public health context, oncology is associated with severe negative impact on patients and on their relatives' quality of life. Over the last decades, survival has remained at 50% worldwide for some tumor locations. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) assessment and, the corresponding use in clinical practice, help establishing patient individualized profiling involving caregivers. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine critical success factors for PROs assessment in daily clinical oncology practice. Additionally, we investigated how PROs collection can change oncology perspectives for patients and caregivers. According to PRISMA guidelines, 83 studies were included in this systematic review, whether related with implementation in daily clinical practice or associated with its use in oncology. PROs assessment gathers multi-professional teams, biomedical and clinical expertise, patients, families and caregivers. Institutional involvement, first line for caregiver's adherence, team continuous formation, encompassing training and support, design of clear workflows, continuous monitoring, and data analysis are crucial for implementation. PROs measures are decisive in oncology. Several items were improved, including caregiver-patient-physician communication, patient risk groups identification, unmet problems and needs detection, disease course and treatment tracking, prognostic markers, cost-effectiveness measurement and comfort/support provision for both patients and caregivers. Routine assessment and implementation of PROs in clinical practice are a major challenge and a paradigm transformation for future.
| S-EPMC9124403 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo give an overview over the associations between self-reported health literacy and medication adherence in older adults.DesignA systematic literature review of quantitative studies published in English and German.Data sourcesMEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and LIVIVO were searched.Eligibility criteriaIncluded studies had to examine the associations between self-reported health literacy and medication adherence in the elderly (samples including ≥66% of ≥60 years old) and had to use a quantitative methodology and had to be written in English or German.Data extraction and synthesisAll studies were screened for inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. A narrative synthesis was applied to analyse all included studies thematically. Quality assessment was conducted using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.ResultsWe found 2313 studies, of which nine publications from eight studies were included in this review. Five studies reported a majority of participants with limited health literacy, one study reported a majority of participants with adequate health literacy, and three publications from two studies only reported mean levels of health literacy. Eight publications from seven studies used self-reports to measure medication adherence, while one study used the medication possession ratio. Overall, six publications from five studies reported significantly positive associations between health literacy and medication adherence while two studies reported positive but non-significant associations between both constructs and one study reported mixed results.ConclusionIn this review, associations between self-reported health literacy and medication adherence are rather consistent, indicating positive associations between both constructs in older adults. However, concepts and measures of health literacy and medication adherence applied in the included studies still show a noteworthy amount of heterogeneity (eg, different use of cutoffs). These results reveal the need for more differentiated research in this area.Prospero registration numberCRD42019141028.
| S-EPMC8679075 | biostudies-literature