Dataset Information

Do patient-reported outcome measures measure up? A qualitative study to examine perceptions and experiences with heart failure proms among diverse, low-income patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) is a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) used to evaluate the health status of patients with heart failure (HF) but has predominantly been tested in settings serving predominately white, male, and economically well-resourced populations. We sought to examine the acceptability of the shorter version of the KCCQ (KCCQ-12) among racially and ethnically diverse patients receiving care in an urban, safety-net setting.

Methods

We conducted cognitive interviews with a diverse population of patients with heart failure in a safety net system to assess their perceptions of the KCCQ-12. We conducted a thematic analysis of the qualitative data then mapped themes to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation Model of Behavior framework.

Results

We interviewed 18 patients with heart failure and found that patients broadly endorsed the concepts of the KCCQ-12 with minor suggestions to improve the instrument's content and appearance. Although patients accepted the KCCQ-12, we found that the instrument did not adequately measure aspects of health care and quality of life that patients identified as being important components of managing their heart failure. Patient-important factors of heart failure management coalesced into three main themes: social support, health care environment, and mental health.

Conclusions

Patients from this diverse, low-income, majority non-white population experience unique challenges and circumstances that impact their ability to manage disease. In this study, patients were receptive to the KCCQ-12 as a tool but perceived that it did not adequately capture key health components such as mental health and social relationships that deeply impact their ability to manage HF. Further study on the incorporation of social determinants of health into PROMs could make them more useful tools in evaluating and managing HF in diverse, underserved populations.

SUBMITTER: Davis J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8760874 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRare diseases may be life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions. Patient care needs are often complex and challenging to coordinate and deliver effectively. Rare diseases and their clinical management may therefore substantially impact on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) may complement clinical assessments by elucidating patients' perspectives on their health status and care priorities. This study explored the opinions of patients and clinicians on the use of PROMs in the management of patients with rare diseases in routine clinical practice.MethodsA total of 15 semi-structured one-to-one interviews were conducted with four patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC); five renal transplant recipients; and six PSC doctors from University Hospitals Birmingham (UHB) NHS Foundation Trust. A focus group session was also conducted with 10 clinical staff members (doctors, nurses and other allied health professionals from UHB). The suitability and acceptability of the Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire (CLDQ) and the Short Form 12 (SF12) were assessed by patients with PSC and their doctors while the Paediatric quality of life inventory Transplant Module (PedsQL-TM) and the EuroQoL-5 dimensions (EQ. 5D) were evaluated by the renal transplant recipients and their doctors. The discussions were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Coding of the transcripts was done using the Nvivo 11 Plus software. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify the main themes and subthemes.ResultsFour themes were identified, namely: (i) potential benefits of PROMs in the management of rare diseases; (ii) views on selected questionnaires; (iii) practical considerations for implementation; and (iv) potential facilitators and barriers of implementation. Patients and clinicians suggested that the use of ePROMs may facilitate patient-centred care by promoting patient-clinician communication, highlighting aspects of HRQOL that are important to patients and encouraging patient involvement in their care. They also felt that the disease-specific CLDQ and PedsQL-TM were more relevant than the generic SF12 and EQ-5D.ConclusionsPatients with rare diseases often experience impaired HRQOL. The use of an ePROM system may enhance the routine management of patients with rare diseases.

Project description:IntroductionTo evaluate the quality of clinical practice, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important as certain questions could only be answered by the patient himself. PROMs help to get a better understanding what is meaningful to a patient and directly affects daily functioning. To move beyond traditional measures, we are interested in what matters to patients and developed this project. The aim of this article is to provide the protocol for our study collecting PROMs in daily medical practice from patients who undergo knee arthroplasty.Methods and analysisThis study is a single-site, observational, prospective cohort study. We will recruit patients scheduled for a knee arthroplasty in our medical office, situated in a private clinic. After signed informed consent, patients complete self-reported questionnaires before the surgery, after 4 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years and 5 years. We will use the following PROMs: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Forgotten Joint Score, EuroQol five dimensions and satisfaction. Additionally, the surgeon will complete the objective Knee Society Score. Administration of the questionnaires will be electronically or paper-based. We will assess differences between preoperative and postoperative data with paired t-test for continuous variables and Wilcoxon signed-rank test for categorical variables. To assess subgroup differences, we will use unpaired t-test for continuous variables and Mann-Whitney U test for categorical variables. To assess possible presence of bias, we will conduct sensitivity analyses.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been reviewed and approved by the local ethics committee in Basel, Switzerland. Written informed consent will be obtained from all patients. We will disseminate the results of the study through peer-reviewed journals, national and international conference presentations and presentations to relevant stakeholders through appropriate channels.

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.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to provide healthcare professionals with peer benchmarked feedback is growing. However, there is little evidence on the opinions of professionals on the value of this information in practice. The purpose of this research is to explore surgeon's experiences of receiving peer benchmarked PROMs feedback and to examine whether this information led to changes in their practice. METHODS: This qualitative research employed a Framework approach. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with surgeons who received peer benchmarked PROMs feedback. The participants included eleven consultant orthopaedic surgeons in the Republic of Ireland. RESULTS: Five themes were identified: conceptual, methodological, practical, attitudinal, and impact. A typology was developed based on the attitudinal and impact themes from which three distinct groups emerged. 'Advocates' had positive attitudes towards PROMs and confirmed that the information promoted a self-reflective process. 'Converts' were uncertain about the value of PROMs, which reduced their inclination to use the data. 'Sceptics' had negative attitudes towards PROMs and claimed that the information had no impact on their behaviour. The conceptual, methodological and practical factors were linked to the typology. CONCLUSION: Surgeons had mixed opinions on the value of peer benchmarked PROMs data. Many appreciated the feedback as it reassured them that their practice was similar to their peers. However, PROMs information alone was considered insufficient to help identify opportunities for quality improvements. The reasons for the observed reluctance of participants to embrace PROMs can be categorised into conceptual, methodological, and practical factors. Policy makers and researchers need to increase professionals' awareness of the numerous purposes and benefits of using PROMs, challenge the current methods to measure performance using PROMs, and reduce the burden of data collection and information dissemination on routine practice.

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.