Dataset Information

Attitudes, experiences, and preferences of ophthalmic professionals regarding routine use of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice.

ABSTRACT: Background/objectives: Routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess quality of health care systems is mandated in many countries and has been implemented successfully in many specialities. Ophthalmology currently lags behind. To support and inform future implementation, we investigated paediatric ophthalmic clinicians' experience of, and future training needs for, using child-appropriate vision PROMs and their views about the barriers and enablers to future routine implementation in clinical practice.

Methods: We conducted a pilot study, using an online survey to elicit the experience, attitudes, training needs and perceptions of barriers and enablers to routine PROMs use of ophthalmic health professionals in the Paediatric Ophthalmology Department at Great Ormond Street Hospital, London. A focus-group was undertaken to discuss survey results and preferences regarding presentation of PROM data. Analysis comprised descriptive statistics, presented alongside complementary qualitative data.

Results: Eighteen clinicians in the department completed the survey. Twenty-seven took part in the focus group. Clinicians had limited experience of using PROMs but high confidence in the potential positive impact on communication with patients, monitoring chronic conditions and clinical decision-making. Clinicians identified operational issues (collection and analysis of data) and impact (interpretation and application of data) as the two key areas for consideration. Training and information requirements before implementation were clearly articulated, alongside the benefits of using digital/electronic data capture ahead of consultations to allow efficiency and automated analysis, and presentation in an appropriate visual format alongside clinical data to ensure meaningful use.

Conclusion: The findings of this pilot study of ophthalmic clinicians working in a specialist paediatric ophthalmology department, suggest that ophthalmic clinicians recognise the potential benefits of routine PROMs use in clinical practice. Together with existing literature outside ophthalmology relating to overcoming barriers and exploiting enablers to routine implementation, findings may be applicable in planning routine PROM implementation in paediatric ophthalmology.

SUBMITTER: Robertson AO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7717508 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Attitudes, experiences, and preferences of ophthalmic professionals regarding routine use of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice.

Robertson Alexandra O AO Tadić Valerija V Rahi Jugnoo S JS

PloS one 20201204 12

<h4>Background/objectives</h4>Routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess quality of health care systems is mandated in many countries and has been implemented successfully in many specialities. Ophthalmology currently lags behind. To support and inform future implementation, we investigated paediatric ophthalmic clinicians' experience of, and future training needs for, using child-appropriate vision PROMs and their views about the barriers and enablers to future routine i ...[more]

PMID: 33275625

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The adoption of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in cancer care has been widely advocated, but little is known about the evidence for the implementation of PROMs in practice. Qualitative research captures the perspectives of health professionals as end-users of PROMs and can be used to inform adoption efforts. This paper presents a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research conducted to address the question: What are the attitudes of health professionals towards PROMs in oncology, including any barriers and facilitators to the adoption of PROMS, reported in qualitative evidence? METHODS:Systematic searches of qualitative evidence were undertaken in four databases and reviewed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies published in English between 1998 and 2018, which reported qualitative findings about the attitudes of health professionals working in oncology towards PROMs were eligible. Studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme's Qualitative Research Checklist. A sentiment analysis was conducted on primary text to examine the polarity (neutral, positive or negative) of health professionals' views of PROMs. Qualitative meta-synthesis was conducted using a constant comparative analysis. RESULTS:From 1227 articles after duplicates were removed, with 1014 excluded against the screening criteria, 213 full text articles remained and were assessed; 34 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. The majority of studies were of good quality. Sentiment analysis on primary text demonstrated an overall positive polarity from the expressed opinions of health professionals. The meta-synthesis showed health professionals' attitudes in four domains: identifying patient issues and needs using PROMs; managing and addressing patient issues; the care experience; and the integration of PROMs into clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS:From the accounts of health professionals, the fit of PROMs with existing practice, how PROMs are valued, capacity to respond to PROMs and the supports in place, formed the key factors which may impede or promote adoption of PROMs in routine practice. To assist policy-makers and services involved in implementing these initiatives, further evidence is required about the relationship between PROMs data collection and corresponding clinical actions. TRIAL REGISTRATION:International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42019119447, 6th March, 2019.

Project description:BackgroundDespite evidence of the positive impact of routine assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), their systematic collection is not widely implemented in cancer care.AimTo assess the knowledge, use and attitudes of healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards PROMs and electronically collected PROMs (ePROMs) in clinical practice and research and to explore respondent-related factors associated with the above dimensions.MethodAn ad hoc developed online survey was administered to all HCPs employed in clinical activity in an Italian comprehensive cancer center. The survey investigated which PROMs were known and used, as well as HCPs' opinions on the advantages and drawbacks of routine PROM assessment, including electronic assessment (ePROM). Linear and logistic regression models were used for association analyses.ResultsFive Hundred Eleven of nine hundred ninety-two invited HCPs (52%) provided analyzable responses. 68% were women, 46% were nurses and 42% physicians, and 52.5% had > 20 years seniority. The average number of PROMs known was six among 17 proposed. All proved to be under-used (< 28%) except unidimensional and multidimensional pain scales (77 and 36%). Respondents expressed an overall positive attitude towards PROMs, with strengths outweighing weaknesses (mean overall scores 3.6 and 2.9, respectively, on a 1-5 scale). 67% of respondents preferred electronic collection over paper and pencil. Profession was associated with knowledge and use (physicians reported knowing more PROMs than other professionals) and with a preference for electronic collection (nurses were less likely to prefer the electronic format than physicians). Senior HCPs were slightly more critical about both PROMs and electronic administration.ConclusionsThis survey indicates an acceptable level of knowledge of common PROM tools but low usage in practice. Based on the generally positive attitude of HCPs, routine implementation of ePROMs can be promoted as long as adequate resources and training are provided.Trial registrationNot registered.

Project description:BackgroundThe importance and potential benefits of introducing patient reported measures (PRMs) into health care service have been widely acknowledged, yet the experience regarding their implementation into practice is limited. There is a considerable paucity of research in adopting PRMs in maternity care routine. This study, which utilizes the PRMs included in Pregnancy and Childbirth (PCB) outcome set developed by International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) as sample measures, aims to elicit Finnish professionals' views on PRMs and to explore the applicability of PRMs in Finnish public maternity care.MethodsThis qualitative study, applying semi-structured interviews, described the local professionals' views towards the application of PRMs in Finnish public maternity care. Professionals were asked to assess the PRMs defined in ICHOM PCB set and provide their expectations and concerns on the implementation of PRMs in Finnish public maternity service.ResultsTwenty professionals participated in the interviews. Participants agreed on the importance and relevance of the PRMs questions included in ICHOM PCB set for delivering and developing maternity care in Finland. However, they criticized the number and length of questions as well as the recommended time points of data collection. In addition, for a successful implementation, various steps like developing suitable questions, redesigning service pathway and protocols, and motivating women to respond to PRMs questions were considered to be important. Also, some potential obstacles, difficulties and risks associated with the implementation were underlined.ConclusionThis study indicates that the implementation of PRMs into Finnish public maternity service is possible, highly relevant and important. However, the adoption of PRMs into routine practice may be challenging and will require a series of efforts. This study shows viewpoints from Finnish professionals who have not participated in developing the ICHOM PCB standard set and provides important insights on the development and implementation of PRMs.

Project description:BackgroundPreregistration, the open science practice of specifying and registering details of a planned study prior to knowing the data, increases the transparency and reproducibility of research. Large-scale replication attempts for psychological results yielded shockingly low success rates and contributed to an increasing demand for open science practices among psychologists. However, preregistering one's studies is still not the norm in the field. Here, we conducted a study to explore possible reasons for this discrepancy.MethodsIn a mixed-methods approach, we conducted an online survey assessing attitudes, motivations, and perceived obstacles with respect to preregistration. Respondents (N = 289) were psychological researchers that were recruited through their publications on Web of Science, PubMed, PSYNDEX, and PsycInfo, and preregistrations on OSF Registries. Based on the theory of planned behavior, we predicted that positive attitudes (moderated by the perceived importance of preregistration) as well as a favorable subjective norm and higher perceived behavioral control positively influence researchers' intention to preregister (directional hypothesis 1). Furthermore, we expected an influence of research experience on attitudes and perceived motivations and obstacles regarding preregistration (non-directional hypothesis 2). We analyzed these hypotheses with multiple regression models and included preregistration experience as a control variable.ResultsResearchers' attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and the perceived importance of preregistration significantly predicted researchers' intention to use preregistration in the future (see hypothesis 1). Research experience influenced both researchers' attitudes and their perception of motivations to preregister, but not the perception of obstacles (see hypothesis 2). Descriptive reports on researchers' attitudes, motivations and obstacles regarding preregistration are provided.DiscussionMany researchers had already preregistered and had a rather positive attitude toward preregistration. Nevertheless, several obstacles were identified that may be addressed to improve and foster preregistration.

Project description:BackgroundOpioids are routinely prescribed after hand surgery, but there is limited research about surgeon variation in prescription patterns and attitudes toward the use of these drugs. We sought to examine hand surgeons' attitudes, beliefs, and self-reported practices regarding the use of opioids.MethodsAn invitation to an online cross-sectional survey was sent to 3225 hand surgeons across the USA via email, of whom 502 (16 %) responded. We used previously published data to compare hand surgeons' concerns about potential adverse opioid-related events with those of primary care physicians.ResultsMost hand surgeons (76 %) reported prescription opioid abuse to be a big or moderate problem in their communities, and 89 % felt that opioids are overused to treat pain. Nearly all (94 %) were very or moderately confident about their clinical skills regarding opioid prescribing, but only 40 % reported always or often asking about a history of opioid abuse or dependence before scheduling surgery. Most (75 %) were very or moderately comfortable refilling opioid prescriptions following fracture surgery, while only 13 % were comfortable doing so after minor elective surgery. Nearly half (49 %) reported being less likely to prescribe opioids compared to 1 year ago, and 67 % believed that the best approach to reduce postoperative opioid use is to discuss pain management and expectations with the patient before surgery. Compared to primary care physicians, hand surgeons were less likely to be concerned about potential adverse patient (e.g., opioid-related addiction [67 vs. 84 %], death [37 vs. 70 %], sedation [57 vs. 71 %]) and prescriber (e.g., malpractice claim [22 vs. 46 %], prosecution [15 vs. 45 %], censure by state medical boards [16 vs. 44 %]) outcomes.ConclusionHand surgeons have become aware of the extent and public health implications of the prescription opioid epidemic, and many are taking an active role by reducing their reliance on these drugs. Additional research using pharmacy data is needed to confirm the extent to which hand surgeons' reliance on prescription opioids is actually decreasing.

Project description:ObjectivesAlthough computerized decision support for imaging is often recommended for optimizing computed tomography (CT) use, no studies have evaluated emergency physicians' (EPs') preferences regarding computerized decision support in the emergency department (ED). In this needs assessment, the authors sought to determine if EPs view overutilization as a problem, if they want decision support, and if so, the kinds of support they prefer.MethodsA 42-item, Web-based survey of EPs was developed and used to measure EPs' attitudes, preferences, and knowledge. Key contacts at local EDs sent letters describing the study to their physicians. Exploratory principal components analysis (PCA) was used to determine the underlying factor structure of multi-item scales, Cronbach's alpha was used to measure internal consistency of items on a scale, Spearman correlations were used to describe bivariate associations, and multivariable linear regression analysis was used to identify variables independently associated with physician interest in decision support.ResultsOf 235 surveys sent, 155 (66%) EPs responded. Five factors emerged from the PCA. EPs felt that: 1) CT overutilization is a problem in the ED (α = 0.75); 2) a patient's cumulative CT study count affects decisions of whether and what type of imaging study to order only some of the time (α = 0.75); 3) knowledge that a patient has had prior CT imaging for the same indication makes EPs less likely to order a CT (α = 0.42); 4) concerns about malpractice, patient satisfaction, or insistence on CTs affect CT ordering decisions (α = 0.62); and 5) EPs want decision support before ordering CTs (α = 0.85). Performance on knowledge questions was poor, with only 18% to 39% correctly responding to each of the three multiple-choice items about effective radiation doses of chest radiograph and single-pass abdominopelvic CT, as well as estimated increased risk of cancer from a 10-mSv exposure. Although EPs wanted information on patients' cumulative exposures, they feel inadequately familiar with this information to make use of it clinically. If provided with patients' cumulative radiation exposures from CT, 87% of EPs said that they would use this information to discuss imaging options with their patients. In the multiple regression model, which included all variables associated with interest in decision support at p < 0.10 in bivariate tests, items independently associated with EPs' greater interest in all types of decision support proposed included lower total knowledge scores, greater frequency that cumulative CT study count affects EP's decision to order CTs, and greater agreement that overutilization of CT is a problem and that awareness of multiple prior CTs for a given indication affects CT ordering decisions.ConclusionsEmergency physicians view overutilization of CT scans as a problem with potential for improvement in the ED and would like to have more information to discuss risks with their patients. EPs are interested in all types of imaging decision support proposed to help optimize imaging ordering in the ED and to reduce radiation to their patients. Findings reveal several opportunities that could potentially affect CT utilization.

Project description:PurposeImplementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical routine requires knowledge and competences regarding their use. In order to facilitate implementation, an e-learning course for health care professionals (HCPs) on the utilisation of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PROMs in oncological clinical practice is being developed. This study aimed to explore future users' educational needs regarding content and learning methods.MethodsThe sequential mixed methods approach was applied. A scoping literature review informed the guideline for qualitative interviews with HCPs with diverse professional backgrounds in oncology and cancer advocates recruited using a purposive sampling strategy. An international online survey was conducted to validate the qualitative findings.ResultsBetween December 2019 and May 2020, 73 interviews were conducted in 9 countries resulting in 8 topic areas (Basic information on PROs in clinical routine, Benefits of PRO assessments in clinical practice, Implementation of PRO assessments in clinical routine, Setup of PRO assessments for clinical application, Interpretation of PRO data, Integration of PROs into the communication with patients, Use of PROs in clinical practice, Self-management recommendations for patients based on PROs) subsequently presented in the online survey. The online survey (open between 3 June and 19 July 2020) was completed by 233 HCPs from 33 countries. The highest preference was indicated for content on interpretation of PRO data (97%), clinical benefits of assessing PRO data (95.3%) and implementation of routine PRO data assessment (94.8%). Regarding learning methods, participants indicated a high preference for practical examples that use a mixed approach of presentation (written, audio, video and interactive).ConclusionEducational needs for an integration of PROs in communication in clinical care and coherent implementation strategies became evident. These results inform the development of an e-learning course to support HCPs in the clinical use of EORTC PRO measures.

Dataset Information

Attitudes, experiences, and preferences of ophthalmic professionals regarding routine use of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice.

Publications

Attitudes, experiences, and preferences of ophthalmic professionals regarding routine use of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets