Dataset Information

Piloting a web-based systematic collection and reporting of patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures in chronic heart failure

ABSTRACT: Objectives To evaluate the feasibility of a digital and continuous collection and reporting of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) for chronic heart failure (CHF). Design A single-site pilot study was settled for evaluating the feasibility of the intervention, both using qualitative and quantitative data (ie, workshop, surveys). Setting The pilot has been implemented in a Tuscan specialised hospital (Italy). Participants 162 patients were involved. Inclusion criteria were: a previous diagnosis of HF, age ?18 years, absence of cognitive impairment or active tumours, ability to provide informed consent to study participation. Intervention The continuous collection and reporting of PROMs and PREMs has been designed and implemented in 2018. PREMs questionnaires for patients were developed, while Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 was used for assessing PROMs. Questionnaires are administered at specific time points: discharge; 30 days, 7 and 12 months after the discharge. Enrolment of patients, administration and real-time reporting of questionnaires are carried on through a digital platform. Outcome measures Enrolment, response and drop-out rates were considered to assess the feasibility of the intervention. Qualitative data were collected during meetings and workshops with health workers. The representativeness of the recruited sample with respect to the population characteristics was also evaluated. Results The system has been successfully implemented during 2018. Response rates have been consistently above 50%, demonstrating patients’ transversal willingness to participate. All the involved stakeholders acknowledged the feasibility of the design. The recruited sample is significantly different in terms of age and educational level compared with the overall population characteristics. Conclusion It is possible to run a web-based systematic collection and reporting system for CHF patient-reported data. Systematic collection and reporting of PROMs and PREMs data allows professionals to increasingly assume CHF patient perspective in their daily work. Limitations will be used to improve the system.

SUBMITTER: Pennucci F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7537457 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundWith the rise of digital health technologies and telemedicine, the need for evidence-based evaluation is growing. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are recommended as an essential part of the evaluation of telemedicine. For the first time, a systematic review has been conducted to investigate the use of PROMs and PREMs in the evaluation studies of telemedicine covering all application types and medical purposes.ObjectiveThis study investigates the following research questions: in which scenarios are PROMs and PREMs collected for evaluation purposes, which PROM and PREM outcome domains have been covered and how often, which outcome measurement instruments have been used and how often, does the selection and quantity of PROMs and PREMs differ between study types and application types, and has the use of PROMs and PREMs changed over time.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search of the MEDLINE and Embase databases and included studies published from inception until April 2, 2020. We included studies evaluating telemedicine with patients as the main users; these studies reported PROMs and PREMs within randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, noncontrolled trials, and feasibility trials in English and German.ResultsOf the identified 2671 studies, 303 (11.34%) were included; of the 303 studies, 67 (22.1%) were feasibility studies, 70 (23.1%) were noncontrolled trials, 20 (6.6%) were controlled trials, and 146 (48.2%) were randomized controlled trials. Health-related quality of life (n=310; mean 1.02, SD 1.05), emotional function (n=244; mean 0.81, SD 1.18), and adherence (n=103; mean 0.34, SD 0.53) were the most frequently assessed outcome domains. Self-developed PROMs were used in 21.4% (65/303) of the studies, and self-developed PREMs were used in 22.3% (68/303). PROMs (n=884) were assessed more frequently than PREMs (n=234). As the evidence level of the studies increased, the number of PROMs also increased (τ=-0.45), and the number of PREMs decreased (τ=0.35). Since 2000, not only has the number of studies using PROMs and PREMs increased, but the level of evidence and the number of outcome measurement instruments used have also increased, with the number of PREMs permanently remaining at a lower level.ConclusionsThere have been increasingly more studies, particularly high-evidence studies, which use PROMs and PREMs to evaluate telemedicine. PROMs have been used more frequently than PREMs. With the increasing maturity stage of telemedicine applications and higher evidence level, the use of PROMs increased in line with the recommendations of evaluation guidelines. Health-related quality of life and emotional function were measured in almost all the studies. Simultaneously, health literacy as a precondition for using the application adequately, alongside proper training and guidance, has rarely been reported. Further efforts should be pursued to standardize PROM and PREM collection in evaluation studies of telemedicine.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Mobile health (mHealth) technologies are increasingly used in various medical fields. However, the potential of mHealth to improve patient care in radiotherapy by acquiring electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) during treatment has been poorly studied so far. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to develop and implement a novel Web app (PROMetheus) for patients undergoing radiotherapy. Herein, we have reported our experience with a focus on feasibility, patient acceptance, and a correlation of ePROMs with the clinical course of the patients. METHODS:In the period between January and June 2018, 21 patients used PROMetheus to score side effects, symptoms, and quality of life-related parameters during and after their treatment. Items of the Patient Reported Outcome version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) were chosen based on the primary site of disease, 27 items for head and neck tumors, 21 items for thoracic tumors, and 24 items for pelvic tumors. RESULTS:In total, 17 out of the 21 patients (81%) regularly submitted ePROMs and more than 2500 data points were acquired. An average of 5.2, 3.5, and 3.3 min was required to complete the head and neck, thorax, and pelvis questionnaires, respectively. ePROMS were able to detect the occurrence of both expected and unexpected side effects during the treatment. In addition, a gradual increase in the severity of side effects over the course the treatment and their remission afterward could be observed with ePROMs. In total, 9 out of the 17 patients (53%), mostly those with head and neck and thoracic cancers, reported PRO-CTCAE grade III or IV fatigue with severe impairments of activities of daily life. CONCLUSIONS:This study shows the successful implementation of an ePROM system and a high patient acceptance. ePROMs have a great potential to improve patient care in radiotherapy by providing a comprehensive documentation of symptoms and side effects, especially of ones that are otherwise underreported.

Project description:Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to quantify patients' perceptions of functional ability. The American Medical Association and NIH suggest patient materials be written at or below 6th to 8th grade reading levels, respectively, yet one recent study asserts that few PROMs comply with these recommendations, and suggests that the majority of PROMs are written at too high of a reading level for self-administered patient use. Notably, this study was limited in its use of only one readability algorithm, although there is no commonly accepted, standard readability algorithm for healthcare-related materials. Our study, using multiple readability equations and heeding equal weight to each, hopes to yield a broader, all-encompassing estimate of readability, thereby offering a more accurate assessment of the readability of orthopaedic PROMS.(1) What proportion of orthopaedic-related PROMs and orthopaedic-related portions of the NIH Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) are written at or below the 6th and 8th grade levels? (2) Is there a correlation between the number of questions in the PROM and reading level? (3) Using systematic edits based on guidelines from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, what proportion of PROMs achieved American Medical Association and NIH-recommended reading levels?Eighty-six (86) independent, orthopaedic and general wellness PROMs, drawn from commonly referenced orthopaedic websites and prior studies, were chosen for analysis. Additionally, owing to their increasing use in orthopaedics, four relevant short forms, and 11 adult, physical health question banks from the PROMIS®, were included for analysis. All documents were analyzed for reading grade levels using 19 unique readability algorithms. Descriptive statistics were performed using SPSS Version 22.0.The majority of the independent PROMs (64 of 86; 74%) were written at or below the 6th grade level, with 81 of 86 (94%) written at or below the 8th grade level. All item banks (11 of 11) and short forms (four of four) of the PROMIS® were written below the 6th grade reading level. The median reading grade level of the 86 independent PROMs was 5.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 4.6-6.1). The PROMIS® question banks had a median reading grade level of 4.1 (IQR, 3.5-4.8); the Adult Short Forms had a median reading grade level of 4.2 (IQR, 4.2-4.3) There was no correlation appreciated between the median reading grade level and the number of questions contained in a PROM (r = -0.081; p = 0.460). For PROMs above NIH-recommended levels, following edits, all (five of five) achieved NIH reading level goals and three (three of five) achieved American Medical Association goals. Editing of these PROMs improved readability by 4.3 median grade level (before, 8.9 [IQR, 8.4-9.1], after 4.6 [IQR, 4.6-6.4], difference of medians, 4.3; p = 0.008).Patient literacy has great influence on healthcare outcomes, and readability is an important consideration in all patient-directed written materials. Our study found that more than 70% of PROMs commonly used in orthopaedics, and all orthopaedic-related portions of the PROMIS® are written at or below the most stringent recommendations (? 6th grade reading level), and more than 90% of independent PROMs and all PROMIS® materials are written at or below an 8th grade level. Additionally, the use of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services guidelines for editing high reading level PROMs yields satisfactory results.Fears of widely incomprehensible PROMs may be unfounded. Future research to identify the most appropriate readability algorithm for use in the healthcare sector, and revalidation of PROMs after readability-improving edits is warranted.

Dataset Information

Piloting a web-based systematic collection and reporting of patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures in chronic heart failure

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets