Patient-reported outcome measurement: a bridge between health and social care?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hughes S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8358562 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:To determine whether greater patient-reported symptom intensity and functional limitation influence expressed preferences for discretionary diagnostic and treatment interventions, we studied the association of patient factors and several Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) scores with patient preferences for diagnostic and treatment interventions before and after the visit, a cross-sectional cohort study. One hundred and forty-three adult patients who completed several PROMs were asked their preferences for diagnostic and treatment interventions before and after a visit with an orthopedic surgeon. Patients with better physical function had fewer preferences for specific diagnostic interventions after the visit (P = .02), but PROM scores had no association with preferences for treatment interventions before or after the visit. A greater percentage of patients expressed the preference for no diagnostic or treatment intervention after the visit with a physician than before (diagnostic intervention; 2.1% before vs 30% after the visit; P ≤ .001 and treatment intervention; 2.1% before vs 17% after the visit; P ≤ .001). This study suggests that physician expertise may be more reassuring to people with more adaptive mind sets.
| S-EPMC7786652 | biostudies-literature
Project description:New models of primary care include patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to promote patient-centered care. PROMs provide information on patient functional status and well-being, can be used to enhance care quality, and are proposed for use in assessing performance. Our objective was to identify a short list of candidate PROMs for use in primary care practice and to serve as a basis for performance measures (PMs). We used qualitative and quantitative methods to identify relevant patient-reported outcome (PRO) domains for use in performance measurement (PRO-PM) and their associated PROMs. We collected data from key informant groups: patients (n = 13; one-on-one and group interviews; concept saturation analysis), clinical thought leaders (n = 9; group discussions; thematic analysis), primary care practices representatives (n = 37; six focus groups; thematic analysis), and primary care payer representatives (n = 10; 12-question survey; frequencies of responses). We merged the key informant group information with findings from environmental literature scans. We conducted a targeted evidence review of measurement properties for candidate PROMs. We used a scoping review and key informant groups to identify PROM evaluation criteria, which were linked to the National Quality Forum measure evaluation criteria. We developed a de novo schema to score candidate PROMs against our criteria. We identified four PRO domains and 10 candidate PROMs: 3 for depressive symptoms, 2 for physical function, 3 for self-efficacy, 2 for ability to participate. Five PROMs met ≥ 70% of the evidence criteria for three PRO domains: PHQ-9 or PROMIS Depression (depression), PF-10 or PROMIS-PF (physical functioning), and PROMIS Self-Efficacy for Managing Treatments and Medications (self-efficacy). The PROMIS Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities met 68% of our criteria and might be considered for inclusion. Existing evidence and key informant data identified 5 candidate PROMs to use in primary care. These instruments can be used to develop PRO-PMs.
| S-EPMC7459066 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA better understanding is needed of the burdens and benefits of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation on patients' physical, mental, and social well-being. The purpose of this report was to evaluate the validity of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures for LVAD patients and to estimate clinically important score differences likely to have implications for patient treatment or care.MethodsAdults from 12 sites across all US geographic regions completed PROMIS measures ≥3 months post-LVAD implantation. Other patient-reported outcomes (eg, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 item), clinician ratings, performance tests, and clinical adverse events were used as validity indicators. Criterion and construct validity and clinically important differences were estimated with Pearson correlations, ANOVA methods, and Cohen d effect sizes.ResultsParticipants' (n=648) mean age was 58 years, and the majority were men (78%), non-Hispanic White people (68%), with dilated cardiomyopathy (55%), long-term implantation strategy (57%), and New York Heart Association classes I and II (54%). Most correlations between validity indicators and PROMIS measures were medium to large (≥0.3; p<0.01). Most validity analyses demonstrated medium-to-large effect sizes (≥0.5) and clinically important differences in mean PROMIS scores (up to 14.8 points). Ranges of minimally important differences for 4 PROMIS measures were as follows: fatigue (3-5 points), physical function (2-3), ability to participate in social roles and activities (3), and satisfaction with social roles and activities (3-5).ConclusionsThe findings provide convincing evidence for the relevance and validity of PROMIS physical, mental, and social health measures in patients from early-to-late post-LVAD implantation. Findings may inform shared decision-making when patients consider treatment options. Patients with an LVAD, their caregivers, and their clinicians should find it useful to interpret the meaning of their PROMIS scores in relation to the general population, that is, PROMIS may help to monitor a return to normalcy in everyday life.
| S-EPMC9940833 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe management of diabetes is complex. There is growing recognition of the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as a standardized method of obtaining an outlook on patients' functional status and well-being. However, no systematic reviews have summarized the studies that investigate the measurement properties of diabetes PROMs.ObjectiveOur aims were to conduct a systematic review of studies investigating the measurement properties of diabetes PROMs by evaluating the methodological quality and overall level of evidence of these PROMs and to categorize them based on the outcome measures assessed.MethodsThis study was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Relevant articles were retrieved from the Embase, PubMed, and PsychINFO databases. The PROMs were evaluated with the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) guidelines.ResultsA total of 363 articles evaluating the measurement properties of PROMs for diabetes in the adult population were identified, of which 238 unique PROMs from 248 studies reported in 209 articles were validated in the type 2 diabetes population. PROMs with at least a moderate level of evidence for ≥5 of 9 measurement properties include the Chinese version of the Personal Diabetes Questionnaire (C-PDQ), Diabetes Self-Management Instrument Short Form (DSMI-20), and Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale in Hong Kong primary care patients (C-ITAS-HK), of which the C-PDQ has a "sufficient (+)" rating for >4 measurement properties. A total of 43 PROMs meet the COSMIN guidelines for recommendation for use.ConclusionsThis study identified and synthesized evidence for the measurement properties of 238 unique PROMs for patients with type 2 diabetes and categorized the PROMs according to their outcome measures. These findings may assist clinicians and researchers in selecting appropriate high-quality PROMs for clinical practice and research.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020180978; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020180978.
| S-EPMC8398743 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes are increasingly used to assess the efficacy of new treatments. Understanding relationships between these and clinical measures can facilitate their interpretation. We examined associations between patient-reported measures of health-related quality of life and clinical indicators of disease severity in a large, heterogeneous sample of patients with heart failure.MethodsPatient-reported measures, including the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the EuroQol Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and clinical measures, including peak VO(2), 6-minute walk distance, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, were assessed at baseline in 2331 patients with heart failure. We used general linear models to regress patient-reported measures on each clinical measure. Final models included for significant sociodemographic variables and 2-way interactions.ResultsThe KCCQ was correlated with peak VO(2) (r = .21) and 6-minute walk distance (r = .27). The VAS was correlated with peak VO(2) (r = .09) and 6-minute walk distance (r = .11). Using the KCCQ as the response variable, a 1-SD difference in peak Vo(2) (4.7 mL/kg/min) was associated with a 2.86-point difference in the VAS (95% CI, 1.98-3.74) and a 4.75-point difference in the KCCQ (95% CI, 3.78-5.72). A 1-SD difference in 6-minute walk distance (105 m) was associated with a 2.78-point difference in the VAS (95% CI, 1.92-3.64) and a 5.92-point difference in the KCCQ (95% CI, 4.98-6.87); NYHA class III was associated with an 8.26-point lower VAS (95% CI, 6.59-9.93) and a 12.73-point lower KCCQ (95% CI, 10.92-14.53) than NYHA class II.ConclusionsThese data may inform deliberations about how to best measure benefits of heart failure interventions, and they generally support the practice of considering a 5-point difference on the KCCQ and a 3-point difference on the VAS to be clinically meaningful.
| S-EPMC2805910 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives Internationally, there has been considerable debate about the role of data in supporting quality improvement in health care. Our objective was to understand how, why and in what circumstances the feedback of aggregated patient-reported outcome measures data improved patient care. Methods We conducted a realist synthesis. We identified three main programme theories underlying the use of patient-reported outcome measures as a quality improvement strategy and expressed them as nine 'if then' propositions. We identified international evidence to test these propositions through searches of electronic databases and citation tracking, and supplemented our synthesis with evidence from similar forms of performance data. We synthesized this evidence through comparing the mechanisms and impact of patient-reported outcome measures and other performance data on quality improvement in different contexts. Results Three programme theories were identified: supporting patient choice, improving accountability and enabling providers to compare their performance with others. Relevant contextual factors were extent of public disclosure, use of financial incentives, perceived credibility of the data and the practicality of the results. Available evidence suggests that patients or their agents rarely use any published performance data when selecting a provider. The perceived motivation behind public reporting is an important determinant of how providers respond. When clinicians perceived that performance indicators were not credible but were incentivized to collect them, gaming or manipulation of data occurred. Outcome data do not provide information on the cause of poor care: providers needed to integrate and interpret patient-reported outcome measures and other outcome data in the context of other data. Lack of timeliness of performance data constrains their impact. Conclusions Although there is only limited research evidence to support some widely held theories of how aggregated patient-reported outcome measures data stimulate quality improvement, several lessons emerge from interventions sharing the same programme theories to help guide the increasing use of these measures.
| S-EPMC5768260 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo analyze time to completion of preoperative legacy patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and more recent computer adaptive Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) questionnaires in patients with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement syndrome undergoing primary hip arthroscopy.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on patients undergoing hip arthroscopy by a single fellowship-trained hip arthroscopist. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing primary arthroscopic hip surgery and completion of at least 1 legacy PRO or PROMIS questionnaire at the preoperative time point. Exclusion criteria were history of contralateral or ipsilateral hip surgery, non-English-speaking patients, patients who completed PROs by phone or by paper form, and patients who did not complete preoperative PROs. Legacy PROs included modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score (HOS), International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), and Hip Pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS-Pain). PROMIS PROs included Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI), and Depression (PROMIS-D). Only preoperative PROs were included in the analysis. Completion time was calculated using the questionnaire start and stop time reported by the survey collecting software. The median and interquartile range of each PRO were reported for analysis of central tendency and statistical dispersion, respectively.ResultsA total of 1,901 patients and 269 patients were included in the legacy and PROMIS groups, respectively. The median time required for completion of each PRO in (minutes: seconds) format was as follows: mHHS (1:29), HOS (3:58), iHOT (2:11), VAS-Pain (0:32), PROMIS-PF (0:46), PROMIS-PI (0:37), and PROMIS-D (0:43). The interquartile range of the middle 50% of respondents was as follows; mHHS (0:58), HOS (2:46), iHOT (1:22), VAS-Pain (0:28), PROMIS-PI (0:19), PROMIS-D (0:29), and PROMIS-PF (0:20).ConclusionsThis study supports that preoperative PROMIS forms require less time to complete than preoperative legacy PROs and are not significantly influenced by age, race, or workers compensation status.Level of evidenceLevel IV, case series.
| S-EPMC8551417 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify and appraise published evidence of the measurement properties for epilepsy-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of children's health-related quality of life (HRQoL).MethodsWe searched multiple databases for studies evaluating the measurement properties of English-language epilepsy-specific PROMs of children's HRQoL. We assessed the methodological quality using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidance. We extracted data about the content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, proxy reliability, responsiveness, and precision, and assessed the measurement properties with reference to standardized criteria.ResultsWe identified 27 papers that evaluated 11 PROMs. Methodological quality was variable. Construct validity, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency were more commonly assessed. Quality of Life in Childhood Epilepsy (QoLCE) questionnaires are parent-reported and evaluated more than other PROMs; QoLCE-55 has good and replicated evidence for structural and construct validity and internal consistency. Health-Related Quality of Life Measure for Children with Epilepsy (CHEQoL) has both child and parent-reported versions and good evidence of content, structural, and construct validity.SignificanceThis review identified two leading candidate epilepsy-specific PROMs for measuring health-related quality of life in children. Establishing evidence of the responsiveness of PROMs is a priority to help the interpretation of meaningful change scores.
| S-EPMC7065094 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMedication adherence is essential for improving the health outcomes of patients. Various patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed to measure medication adherence in patients. However, no study has summarized the psychometric properties of these PROMs to guide selection for use in clinical practice or research.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the quality of the PROMs used to measure medication adherence.MethodsThis study was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Relevant articles were retrieved from the EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases. The PROMs were then evaluated based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines.ResultsA total of 121 unique medication adherence PROMs from 214 studies were identified. Hypotheses testing for construct validity and internal consistency were the most frequently assessed measurement properties. PROMs with at least a moderate level of evidence for ≥5 measurement properties include the Adherence Starts with Knowledge 20, Compliance Questionnaire-Rheumatology, General Medication Adherence Scale, Hill-Bone Scale, Immunosuppressant Therapy Barrier Scale, Medication Adherence Reasons Scale (MAR-Scale) revised, 5-item Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS-5), 9-item MARS (MARS-9), 4-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-4), 8-item MMAS (MMAS-8), Self-efficacy for Appropriate Medication Adherence Scale, Satisfaction with Iron Chelation Therapy, Test of Adherence to Inhalers, and questionnaire by Voils. The MAR-Scale revised, MMAS-4, and MMAS-8 have been administered electronically.ConclusionsThis study identified 121 PROMs for medication adherence and provided synthesized evidence for the measurement properties of these PROMs. The findings from this study may assist clinicians and researchers in selecting suitable PROMs to assess medication adherence.
| S-EPMC7584986 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Palliative care patients can be at risk of social isolation or loneliness. Interventions that can provide effective social support, and particularly emotional support, could facilitate healthy coping that bolsters quality of life and reduces depression in palliative care patients. This is an observational cohort study which recruited thirty patients (n = 30) from the day services of four independent hospices in England. Participants completed patient reported outcome measures in perceived social support, loneliness, and depression, at up to three time points. Age range was 56-91 years, males and females were equally represented, and the sample was 93% white British. In participants that provided two or more timepoints, perceived social support increased, and loneliness and depression decreased. Largest changes with the least variation between participants was in emotional support (p = 0.165) and loneliness (p = 0.104). These results suggest that the psychosocial patient reported outcome measures used (MOS-SS, UCLA, BEDS) could be sensitive to change aligned with the goals of this intervention in palliative care. Participants in this study were observed to derive psychosocial benefit from attending the hospice day service.
| S-EPMC9603547 | biostudies-literature