Dataset Information

Patient-Reported Experience Measures in outpatient rheumatology care: a systematic review

ABSTRACT: Abstract

Objectives

There is a growing acceptance of the need for routine implementation of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in health care. Rheumatology patients, as frequent and long-term users of care, stand to benefit from collection of experience-related data. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review to identify and critically appraise the development and psychometric validation of PREMs in rheumatology.

Methods

Six databases were searched systematically from inception to 14 December 2020: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Cochrane and Google Scholar. We included articles in English that described the use or development of PREMs, with results of psychometric testing, in an adult outpatient rheumatology context. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021233819). Articles were appraised using the COnsensus Based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) (i) Risk of Bias checklist and (ii) criteria for good measurement properties.

Results

The search yielded 3809 publications, and six studies met inclusion criteria. All the included studies on PREM development fulfilled COSMIN standards for ‘doubtful’ or ‘inadequate’ quality of instrument development. One study fulfilled a ‘sufficient’ rating for content validity, and the remainder fulfilled ‘inconsistent’ ratings. During validity testing, studies fulfilled between one and four of the eight COSMIN checklist criteria for good measurement properties.

Conclusion

Methodological concerns regarding instrument development and validation limit the generalizability of the existing six validated PREMs in use in rheumatology contexts. There is a need for further well-designed studies to validate existing and new PREMs in this area.

SUBMITTER: Bryant M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8578687 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: Patient-reported Experience Measures (PREMs) are validated questionnaires, that gather patients' and families' views of their experience receiving care and are commonly used to measure the quality of care, with the goal to make care more patient and family-centered. PREMs are increasingly being adopted in pediatric population, however knowledge gaps exist around understanding the use of PREMs in pediatrics. Objective: To identify and synthesize evidence on the use of PREMs in pediatric healthcare settings and their characteristics. Evidence Review: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines governed the conduct and reporting of this review. An exhaustive search strategy was applied to MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases to identify relevant peer-reviewed articles from high-income countries. Additionally, gray literature was searched to capture real-world implementation of PREMs. All the articles were screened independently by two reviewers in two steps. Data was extracted independently, synthesized, and tabulated. Findings from gray literature was synthesized and reported separately. Risk of bias for the studies identified through scientific databases was assessed independently by two reviewers using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Results: The initial search identified 15,457 articles. After removing duplicates, the title and abstracts of 11,543 articles were screened. Seven hundred ten articles were eligible for full-text review. Finally, 83 articles met the criteria and were included in the analyses. Of the 83 includes studies conducted in 14 countries, 48 were conducted in USA, 25 in European countries and 10 in other countries. These 83 studies reported on the use of 39 different PREMs in pediatric healthcare settings. The gray literature retrieved 10 additional PREMs. The number of items in these PREMs ranged from 7 to 89. Twenty-three PREMs were designed to be completed by proxy, 10 by either pediatric patients or family caregivers, and 6 by pediatric patients themselves. Conclusion and Relevance: This comprehensive review is the first to systematically search evidence around the use of PREMs in pediatrics. The findings of this review can guide health administrators and researchers to use appropriate PREMs to implement patient and family-centered care in pediatrics.

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:ImportanceOutpatient postpartum recovery is an underexplored area of obstetrics. There is currently no consensus regarding which patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) clinicians and researchers should use to evaluate postpartum recovery.ObjectiveTo evaluate PROMs of outpatient postpartum recovery using Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines.Evidence reviewAn initial literature search performed in July 2019 identified postpartum recovery PROMs and validation studies. A secondary search in July 2020 identified additional validation studies. Both searches were performed using 4 databases (Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and CINAHL), with no date limiters. Studies with PROMs evaluating more than 3 proposed outpatient postpartum recovery domains were considered. Studies were included if they assessed any psychometric measurement property of the included PROMs in the outpatient postpartum setting. The PROMs were assessed for the following 8 psychometric measurement properties, as defined by COSMIN: content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity and measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, hypothesis testing, and responsiveness. Psychometric measurement properties were evaluated in each included study using the COSMIN criteria by assessing (1) the quality of the methods (very good, adequate, doubtful, inadequate, or not assessed); (2) overall rating of results (sufficient, insufficient, inconsistent, or indeterminate); (3) level of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations assessment tool; and (4) level of recommendation, which included class A (recommended for use; showed adequate content validity with at least low-quality evidence for sufficient internal consistency), class B (not class A or class C), or class C (not recommended).FindingsIn total, 15 PROMs (7 obstetric specific and 8 non-obstetric specific) were identified, evaluating outpatient postpartum recovery in 46 studies involving 19 165 women. The majority of psychometric measurement properties of the included PROMs were graded as having very-low-level or low-level evidence. The best-performing PROMs that received class A recommendations were the Maternal Concerns Questionnaire, the Postpartum Quality of Life tool, and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF. The remainder of the evaluated PROMs had insufficient evidence to make recommendations regarding their use (and received class B recommendations).Conclusions and relevanceThis review found that the best-performing PROMs currently available to evaluate outpatient postpartum recovery were the Maternal Concerns Questionnaire, the Postpartum Quality of Life tool, and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF; however, these tools all had significant limitations. This study highlights the need to focus future efforts on robustly developing and validating a new PROM that may comprehensively evaluate outpatient postpartum recovery.

Project description:ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to characterize the current literature on electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in rheumatology and assess the feasibility and utility of ePROMs and mobile health technology in the management of rheumatic disease.IntroductionPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used in rheumatology as they are important markers of disease activity and overall function, encourage shared decision-making, and are associated with high rates of patient satisfaction. With the widespread use of mobile devices, there is increasing interest in the use of mobile health technology to collect electronic PROMs (ePROM).Inclusion criteriaAll primary studies that involve the collection of ePROMs using mobile devices by individuals with a rheumatic disease were included. Articles were excluded if ePROMs were measured during clinic appointments.MethodsA scoping review was performed using Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL with index terms and key words related to "patient-reported outcome measures", "rheumatic diseases", and "mobile health technology".ResultsA total of 462 records were identified after duplicates were removed. Of the 70 studies selected for review, 43% were conference proceedings and 57% were journal articles, with the majority published in 2016 or later. Inflammatory arthritis was the most common rheumatic disease studied. Generic ePROMs were used over three times more often than disease-specific ePROMs. A total of 39 (56%) studies directly evaluated the feasibility of ePROMs in clinical practice, 19 (27%) were clinical trials that used ePROMs as study endpoints, 9 (13%) were focus groups or surveys on smartphone application development, and 3 (4%) did not fit into one defined category.ConclusionThe use of ePROMs in rheumatology is a growing area of research and shows significant utility in clinical practice, particularly in inflammatory arthritis. Further research is needed to better characterize the feasibility of ePROMs in rheumatology and their impact on patient outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a considerable amount of research showing an association between continuity of care and improved health outcomes. However, the methods used in most studies examine only the pattern of interactions between patients and clinicians through administrative measures of continuity. The patient experience of continuity can also be measured by using patient reported experience measures. Unlike administrative measures, these can allow elements of continuity such as the presence of information or how joined up care is between providers to be measured. Patient experienced continuity is a marker of healthcare quality in its own right. However, it is unclear if, like administrative measures, patient reported continuity is also linked to positive health outcomes.MethodsCohort and interventional studies that examined the relationship between patient reported continuity of care and a health outcome were eligible for inclusion. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched in April 2021. Citation searching of published continuity measures was also performed. QUIP and Cochrane risk of bias tools were used to assess study quality. A box-score method was used for study synthesis.ResultsNineteen studies were eligible for inclusion. 15 studies measured continuity using a validated, multifactorial questionnaire or the continuity/co-ordination subscale of another instrument. Two studies placed patients into discrete groups of continuity based on pre-defined questions, one used a bespoke questionnaire, one calculated an administrative measure of continuity using patient reported data. Outcome measures examined were quality of life (n = 11), self-reported health status (n = 8), emergency department use or hospitalisation (n = 7), indicators of function or wellbeing (n = 6), mortality (n = 4) and physiological measures (n = 2). Analysis was limited by the relatively small number of hetrogenous studies. The majority of studies showed a link between at least one measure of continuity and one health outcome.ConclusionWhilst there is emerging evidence of a link between patient reported continuity and several outcomes, the evidence is not as strong as that for administrative measures of continuity. This may be because administrative measures record something different to patient reported measures, or that studies using patient reported measures are smaller and less able to detect smaller effects. Future research should use larger sample sizes to clarify if a link does exist and what the potential mechanisms underlying such a link could be. When measuring continuity, researchers and health system administrators should carefully consider what type of continuity measure is most appropriate.

Project description:ImportanceGender-affirming care is a key clinical area that can benefit from implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Identifying barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation is needed to develop an evidence-based implementation strategy.ObjectiveTo identify (1) PROMs previously implemented for gender-affirming care and constructs measured, (2) how patients completed PROMs and how results were reported and used, and (3) barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation.Evidence reviewIn this systematic review, PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from inception to October 25, 2021, and updated on December 16, 2022. Gray literature was searched through gray literature database, online search engine, and targeted website searching. Inclusion criteria were (1) original articles of (2) a formally developed PROM or ad hoc instrument administered for gender-affirming care to (3) patients accessing gender-affirming care. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was used to evaluate quality of included studies. This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021233080).FindingsIn total, 286 studies were included, representing 85 395 transgender and nonbinary patients from more than 30 countries. A total of 205 different PROMs were used in gender-affirming care. No studies described using an implementation science theory, model, or framework to support PROM deployment. Key barriers to PROM implementation included issues with evidence strength and quality of the PROM, engaging participants, and PROM complexity. Key enablers of PROM implementation included using PROMs validated for gender-affirming care, implementing PROMs able to be deployed online or in person, implementing PROMs that are shorter and reduce patient burden, engaging key stakeholders and participants as part of developing an implementation plan, and organizational climate.Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review of barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation in gender-affirming care, PROM implementation was inconsistent and did not follow evidence-based approaches in implementation science. There was also a lack of patient input in creating implementation strategies, suggesting a need for patient-centered approaches to PROM implementation. Frameworks created from these results can be used to develop evidence-based PROM implementation initiatives for gender-affirming care and have potential generalizability for other clinical areas interested in implementing PROMs.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is significant promise in analyzing physician patient-sharing networks to indirectly measure care coordination, yet it is unknown whether these measures reflect patients' perceptions of care coordination. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the associations between network-based measures of care coordination and patient-reported experience measures. DESIGN:We analyzed patient-sharing physician networks within group practices using data made available by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. SUBJECTS:Medicare beneficiaries who provided responses to the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Survey in 2016 (data aggregated by physician group practice made available through the Physician Compare 2016 Group Public Reporting). MAIN MEASURES:The outcomes of interest were patient-reported experience measures reflecting aspects of care coordination (CAHPS). The predictor variables of interests were physician group practice density (the number of physician pairs who share patients adjusting for the total number of physician pairs) and clustering (the extent to which sets of three physicians share patients). KEY RESULTS:Four hundred seventy-six groups had patient-reported measures available. Patients' perception of "Clinicians working together for your care" was significantly positively associated with both physician group practice density (Est (95?%?CI)?=?5.07(0.83,?9.33),?p?=?0.02) and clustering (Est (95?%?CI)?=?3.73(1.01,?6.44),?p?=?0.007). Physician group practice clustering was also significantly positively associated with "Getting timely care, appointments, and information" (Est (95?%?CI)?=?4.63(0.21,?9.06), p?=?0.04). CONCLUSIONS:This work suggests that network-based measures of care coordination are associated with some patient-reported experience measures. Evaluating and intervening on patient-sharing networks may provide novel strategies for initiatives aimed at improving quality of care and the patient experience.