Identifying and appraising patient-reported outcome measures on treatment satisfaction in acne: a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
After dermatitis, acne is the next skin disease to contribute most to the burden of skin diseases worldwide. Recently, seven core outcome domains have been identified, which together form an Acne Core Outcome Set (ACORN). One of these was satisfaction with acne treatment.Objectives
To identify studies that described the development of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS), evaluated one or more measurement properties of a PROM, or evaluated the interpretability of a PROM in patients with acne regarding treatment satisfaction.Methods
The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) search strategy for identifying PROMS on acne treatment satisfaction was used. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, PsycINFO and Academic Search premier (June 2020). Study selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality according to COSMIN guidance were carried out independently by two authors.Results
Only one study could be included, describing the development of a treatment satisfaction measure in patients with acne. The development was assessed as inadequate and data on measurement properties were lacking. Additionally, we found 188 studies reporting treatment satisfaction solely as an outcome, using a wide variety of methods, none of them standardized or validated.Conclusions
We could not find a PROM on treatment satisfaction to recommend for a core outcome set in acne. There is an unmet need for a PROM on treatment satisfaction in acne that is robustly developed, designed and validated.
SUBMITTER: van Zuuren EJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8359297 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the acceptability and validity of two patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for adult acne, comparing them to the validated Acne-specific Quality of Life (Acne-QoL) measure.DesignMixed-methods validation study.SettingParticipants were recruited by (1) mail-out through primary care if they had ever consulted for acne and received a prescription for acne treatment within the last 6 months, (2) opportunistically in secondary care and (3) poster advertisement in community venues.Participants221 (204 quantitative and 17 qualitative) participants with acne, aged 18-50 years.Outcome measuresQuantitative sub-study participants completed Acne-QoL, Skindex-16 and Comprehensive Acne Quality of Life Scale (CompAQ) at baseline, 24 hours and 6 weeks. Qualitative sub-study participants took part in cognitive think-aloud interviews, while completing the same measures. Transcribed audio recordings were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.ResultsQuantitative analyses suggested high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.74-0.96) and reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient values 0.88-0.97) for both questionnaires. Both scales showed floor effects on some subdomains. Skindex-16 and CompAQ showed good evidence of construct validity when compared with Acne-QoL with Spearman's correlation coefficients 0.54-0.81, and good repeatability over 24 hours.Qualitative data uncovered wide-ranging views regarding usability and acceptability. Interviewees held strong but differing views about layout, question/response wording, redundant/similar questions and guidance notes. Similarly, interviewees differed in perceptions of acceptability of the different scales, particularly on relatability of questions and emotive reactions to scales.ConclusionsAll PROMs performed well in statistical analyses. No PROM showed superior usability and acceptability in the qualitative study. Any PROM should be acceptable for further research in adult acne but researchers should consider the different domains and whether they will measure only facial or facial and trunk acne before making a selection. A new PROM or further evaluation of novel PROMs may be beneficial.
| S-EPMC7986881 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are measures of the outcome of treatment(s) reported directly by the patient or carer. There is increasing international policy interest in using these to assess the impact of clinical care.AimsTo identify suitably validated PROMs for asthma and examine their potential for use in clinical settings.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases from 1990 onwards to identify PROMs for asthma. These were critically appraised, then narratively synthesised. We also identified the generic PROMs commonly used alongside asthma-specific PROMs.ResultsWe identified 68 PROMs for asthma, 13 of which were selected through screening as being adequately developed to warrant full-quality appraisal: 8 for adults, 4 for children and 1 for a child's caregiver. The PROMs found to be sufficiently well validated to offer promise for use in clinical settings were the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and mini-AQLQ for adults, and Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire for children. Rhinasthma was considered promising in simultaneously assessing the impact of asthma and rhinitis in those with coexistent disease. We identified 28 generic PROMs commonly used in conjunction with asthma-specific instruments.ConclusionsWe identified asthma PROMs that offer the greatest potential for use in clinical settings. Further work is needed to assess whether these are fit-for-purpose for use in clinical practice with individual patients. In particular, there is a need to ensure these are validated for use in clinical settings, acceptable to patients, caregivers and clinicians, and yield meaningful outcomes.
| S-EPMC4373322 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Issues arising from a lack of outcome standardisation in health research may be addressed by the use of core outcome sets (COS), which represent agreed-upon recommendations regarding what outcomes should be measured as a minimum in studies of a health condition. This review investigated the scope, outcomes, and development methods of consensus-based COS for cancer, and their approaches and criteria for selecting instruments to assess core patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS:Studies that used a consensus-driven approach to develop a COS containing PROs, for use in research with cancer populations, were sought via MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, and grey literature. RESULTS:Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. Most COS (82%) were specific to a cancer type (prostate, esophageal, head and neck, pancreatic, breast, ovarian, lung, or colorectal) and not specific to an intervention or treatment (76%). Conducting a systematic review was the most common approach to identifying outcomes (88%) and administering a Delphi survey was the most common approach to prioritising outcomes (71%). The included COS contained 90 PROs, of which the most common were physical function, sexual (dys) function, pain, fatigue, and emotional function. Most studies (59%) did not address how to assess the core PROs included in a set, while 7 studies (41%) recommended specific instruments. Their approaches to instrument appraisal and selection varied. CONCLUSION:Efforts to standardise outcome assessment via the development of COS may be undermined by a lack of recommendations on how to measure core PROs. To optimise COS usefulness and adoption, valid and reliable instruments for the assessment of core PROs should be recommended with the aid of resources designed to facilitate this process.
| S-EPMC7492323 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeInformal caregivers provide invaluable help and support to people with cancer. As treatments extend survival and the potential burdens on carers increase, there is a need to assess the impact of the role. This systematic review identified instruments that measure the impact of caregiving, evaluated their psychometric performance specifically in cancer and appraised the content.MethodsA two-stage search strategy was employed to: (1) identify instruments that measure the impact of caregiving, and (2) run individual searches on each measure to identify publications evaluating psychometric performance in the target population. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO and restricted to English for instrument used and article language. Psychometric performance was evaluated for content and construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, precision, responsiveness and acceptability. Individual scale items were extracted and systematically categorised into conceptual domains.ResultsTen papers were included reporting on the psychometric properties of eight measures. Although construct validity and internal consistency were most frequently evaluated, no study comprehensively evaluated all relevant properties. Few studies met our inclusion criteria so it was not possible to consider the psychometric performance of the measures across a group of studies. Content analysis resulted in 16 domains with 5 overarching themes: lifestyle disruption; well-being; health of the caregiver; managing the situation and relationships.ConclusionsFew measures of caregiver impact have been subject to psychometric evaluation in cancer caregivers. Those that have do not capture well changes in roles and responsibilities within the family and career, indicating the need for a new instrument.
| S-EPMC4945691 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This review article systematically reviews the use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Vitreoretinal surgery, with the aim of recommending a preferred PROM-tool for use in clinical practice. Vitreoretinal surgery lags behind other ophthalmic subspecialties in the adoption of PROMs as a core outcome measure of success post-operatively. Current outcomes rely heavily on post-operative Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) and anatomical success on imaging modalities such as Ocular Coherence Tomography (OCT), despite the link between each of these measures and patient satisfaction being uncertain. We systematically reviewed the available literature in March 2021, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, searching six databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, APA PsycINFO, SCOPUS and Cochrane Library. Critical appraisal of PROM-tools was facilitated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist. We identified 14 eligible original research papers that used PROMs as a primary or secondary outcome of success post-operatively in patients having undergone vitreoretinal surgery. Eight different generic and vision-related PROM-tools were identified as being used in vitreoretinal studies, none of which were vitreoretinal-disease-specific. Our review article considers whether generic-health PROMs (e.g., EQ5D) or vision-related PROMs (e.g. NEI VFQ-25) are precise or responsive enough following vitreoretinal surgery to have a meaningful impact on clinical or research practice. We also consider the importance of standardisation of clinical outcomes in vitreoretinal clinical trials.
| S-EPMC9905525 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealthcare requires patient feedback to improve outcomes and experience. This study undertook a systematic review of the depth, variability, and digital suitability of current patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.MethodsA PROSPERO-registered (registration number CRD42021261707) systematic review was undertaken for all relevant English language articles using PubMed version of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases in June 2021. The search used Boolean operators and wildcards and included the keywords: laparoscopic cholecystectomy AND patient outcome OR patient-reported outcome OR patient-reported outcome measure OR PRO OR PROM. Medical Subjects Heading terms were used to search PubMed and Scopus. Articles published from 1 January 2011 to 2 June 2021 were included.ResultsA total of 4960 individual articles were reviewed in this study, of which 44 were found to evaluate PROMs in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and underwent methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) grading. Twenty-one articles spanning 19 countries and four continents met all inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative data synthesis. There was significant heterogeneity in PROMs identified with eight different comprehensive PROM tools used in the 21 studies. There was wide variation in the time points at which PROMs were recorded. Fourteen of 21 studies recorded PROMs before and after surgery, and 7 of 21 recorded PROMs only after surgery. Follow-up intervals ranged from 3 days to 2 years after surgery.ConclusionsThis study identified that while post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy PROMs are infrequently measured currently, tools are widely available to achieve this in clinical practice. PROMs may not capture all the outcomes but should be incorporated into future cholecystectomy outcome research. The EQ-5D™ (EuroQoL Group, Rotterdam, the Netherlands) provides a simple platform for the modern digital era.
| S-EPMC9171002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPeople with multimorbidity are increasingly engaged, enabled, and empowered to take responsibility for managing their health status. The purpose of the study was to systematically review and appraise the psychometric properties of tools measuring patient engagement in adults with multimorbidity and their applicability for use within engagement programs.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycInfo were searched from inception to 1 July 2021. Gray literature was searched using EBSCO host-database "Open dissertation". The reference lists of studies meeting the inclusion criteria were searched to identify additional eligible studies. The screening of the search results and the data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated with the COSMIN checklist. Relevant data from all included articles were extracted and summarized in evidence synthesis tables.ResultsTwenty articles on eight tools were included. We included tools that measure all four dimensions of patient engagement (i.e., engagement, empowerment, activation, and participation). Their psychometric properties were analyzed separately. Most tools were developed in the last 10 years in Europe or the USA. The comparison of the estimated psychometric properties of the retrieved tools highlighted a significant lack of reliable patient engagement measures for people with multimorbidity. Available measures capture a diversity of constructs and have very limited evidence of psychometric properties that are vital for patient-reported measures, such as invariance, reliability, and responsiveness.ConclusionThis review clarifies how patient engagement, as operationalized in measures purporting to capture this concept, overlaps with, and differs from other related constructs in adults with multimorbidity. The methodological quality of psychometric tools measuring patient engagement in adults with multimorbidity could be improved.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=259968, identifier CRD42021259968.
| S-EPMC11294995 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7880114 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8663685 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Surgical procedures incorporating a cosmetic element such as septorhinoplasty and otoplasty are currently under threat in the National Health Service (NHS) as they are deemed to be procedures of 'limited clinical benefit' by many primary care providers. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), which assess the quality of care delivered from the patients' perspective, are becoming increasingly important in documenting the effectiveness of such procedures.The Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation (ROE) questionnaire, a validated PROM tool, was used to assess patient satisfaction in 141 patients undergoing septorhinoplasty surgery over a 90-month period at the University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust.Overall, 100 patients with a mean follow-up period of 36 months completed the study. The mean ROE score was 73.3%. In addition, 75% of patients questioned were happy with the final result of their operation and 83% would undergo the procedure again if required. These benefits occurred irrespective of age, sex and primary versus revision surgery, and were maintained for up to 71 months following surgery.This study has shown that patients are generally satisfied with their functional and cosmetic outcomes following septorhinoplasty surgery. These results help support the case for septorhinoplasty surgery to continue being funded as an NHS procedure.
| S-EPMC4473903 | biostudies-other