Dataset Information

Patient-reported outcomes in autosomal inherited bleeding disorders: A systematic literature review.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

Currently, it is unknown which patient-reported outcomes are important for patients with autosomal inherited bleeding disorders. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to systematically review the available literature assessing patient-reported outcomes and their measurement methods in autosomal inherited bleeding disorders.

Methods

The Embase, Medline ALL, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception until 14 August 2020. Studies on patient-reported outcomes in patients with von Willebrand disease, inherited platelet function disorders and coagulation factor deficiencies were included.

Results

Twenty-one articles met the inclusion criteria. Three studies were assessed as having poor quality, and therefore a high risk of bias. Nineteen studies had fair quality rating. Different measurements methods were used, ranging from predefined to self-developed questionnaires. The majority of included studies focused on von Willebrand disease. Patients with von Willebrand disease reported lower health-related quality of life compared to the general population. Overall, this trend was especially visible in the following domains: vitality, physical and social functioning and pain. Women with inherited bleeding disorders scored lower on health-related quality of life compared to men, especially women with heavy menstrual bleeding. Patients with joint bleeds or heavy menstrual bleeding reported an increased level of pain.

Conclusion

Patients with autosomal inherited bleeding disorders report lower health related quality of life, especially those with joint bleeds or heavy menstrual bleeding. Numerous measurement methods are used in patients with autosomal inherited bleeding disorders, highlighting the need for studies using established, standardized measurement methods.

SUBMITTER: van Hoorn ES

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9305757 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionHidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has a profound negative impact on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Here we summarize the evidence on HRQoL and Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) in patients with HS in real-world settings by conducting a systematic literature review (SLR) of observational studies.MethodsData sources included MEDLINE, Embase & PsycINFO between January 1, 2010 and August 29, 2021, and conference proceedings between 2019 and 2021. Identified abstracts were reviewed and screened independently by two reviewers. Eligibility criteria included patients with HS of any severity, sample size ≥ 100, reporting PROs including HRQoL measures. Included studies were critically appraised.ResultsFifty-eight observational studies matched inclusion criteria. Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) was the most commonly utilized instrument: 57% of included studies reported mean baseline DLQI scores, ranging between 8.4 and 16.9, indicating a very large impact on the patients' HRQoL. Higher scores were reported with increasing disease severity and among female patients. Pain was assessed mostly by an 11-point (0-10) numeric rating scale (NRS) with a mean baseline score ranging from 3.6 to 7.7 indicating moderate to high pain levels. There was a negative impact of HS on patients' psychological well-being, based on PRO scores related to depression and anxiety. A high proportion of sexual dysfunction was reported, with a larger impact on women than men. Work productivity and leisure activity were consistently found to be impaired in patients with HS.ConclusionsAll included studies reported a negative impact of HS on patients' lives. A diverse set of disease- and non-disease-specific PRO instruments were utilized highlighting the need for more consistent use of HS-specific validated PRO instruments to assess the impact of HS on the different aspects of patients' HRQoL to allow for data to be more meaningfully interpreted and compared in real-world settings. Patients with HS need better disease management approaches that address the observed low quality of life.

Project description:IntroductionA systematic literature review was conducted with the aim to analyse the impact of comorbidity on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).MethodsA sensitive search strategy of the Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library (up to March 2019) was applied to retrieve studies for inclusion in this systematic literature review. Abstracts of the ACR and EULAR scientific meetings were also searched. The selection criteria were: (1) patients with PsA (population) with a comorbidity (intervention) and (2) report of any impact of the comorbidity on PROs. Systematic literature reviews, randomized controlled trials and observational were included in this systematic literature review. Two of the authors selected the articles and collected the data.ResultsEighteen articles were included in this systematic literature review, with most being cross-sectional studies that included more than 9000 patients with PsA. Some studies analysed the impact of an individual comorbidity, such as fibromyalgia (FM), and in others the analysis was according to the number of comorbidities. The most frequently analysed PROs were function, quality of life and fatigue. Analysis of the studies included in the review showed that patients with a higher number of comorbidities and/or more severe comorbidities reported worse impacts of their disease on function, patient's global assessment (PGA), pain, fatigue, work disability and quality of life. Specifically, FM had a negative impact on the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), function, quality of sleep and quality of life; anxiety and depression had a negative impact on function and fatigue; metabolic syndrome had a negative impact on BASDAI, function, PGA and quality of life; obesity had a negative impact on function and pain; smoking (current and ex-smokers) had a negative impact on pain, function, fatigue, quality of life and overall health; alcohol intake had a negative impact on pain, function, fatigue, quality of life and overall health.ConclusionsThe prevalence and impact of medical comorbidity on PROs are very high in patients with PsA.

Project description:BackgroundRecent events in health care reform have brought national attention to integrating patient experiences and expectations into quality metrics. Few studies have comprehensively evaluated the effect of patient expectations on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after surgery. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the available literature describing the relationship between patient expectations and postoperative PROs.MethodsWe performed a search of the literature published before November 1, 2012. Articles were included in the review if (1) primary data were presented, (2) patient expectations regarding a surgical procedure were measured, (3) PROs were measured, and (4) the relationship between patient expectations and PROs was specifically examined. PROs were categorized into 5 subgroups: Satisfaction, quality of life (QOL), disability, mood disorder, and pain. We examined each study to determine the relationship between patient expectations and PROs as well as study quality.ResultsFrom the initial literature search yielding 1,708 studies, 60 articles were included. Fulfillment of expectations was associated with improved PROs among 24 studies. Positive expectations were correlated with improved PROs for 28 studies (47%), and poorer PROs for 9 studies (15%). Eighteen studies reported that fulfillment of expectations was correlated with improved patient satisfaction, and 10 studies identified that positive expectations were correlated with improved postoperative. Finally, patients with positive preoperative expectations reported less pain (8 studies) and disability (15 studies) compared with patients with negative preoperative expectations.ConclusionPatient expectations are inconsistently correlated with PROs after surgery, and there is no accepted method to capture perioperative expectations. Future efforts to rigorously measure expectations and explore their influence on postoperative outcomes can inform clinicians and policymakers seeking to integrate PROs into measures of surgical quality.

Project description:BackgroundGaucher's disease (GD), a rare condition, represents the most common lysosomal storage disorder. The cardinal manifestations of GD are fatigue, hepatosplenomegaly, anemia, thrombocytopenia, bone pain, and bone infarction, thereby culminating in a marked deterioration of patients' quality of life (QoL). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) offer valuable insights into the impact of GD on patients' QoL and symptoms. This systematic review aimed to identify and analyze PROs and outcome measures in GD patients.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science Core Collections, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Wan Fang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM). The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using a mixed methods assessment tool.ResultsA total of 33 studies were identified, encompassing 24 distinct patient-reported outcome instruments, with the most frequently employed instrument being the SF-36. The study designs included eighteen cross-sectional studies, seven pre- and post-intervention investigations, three randomized controlled trials, two cohort studies, two qualitative inquiries, and one validation study. These studies explored diverse domains such as the QoL and cardinal symptoms (e.g., fatigue, pain, bleeding, cognition, social relationships, and psychological functioning) in patients with GD. Furthermore, significant attention was directed towards the appraisal of the therapeutic benefits of various interventions in patients with GD. A novel GD-specific instrument has also been developed, which has two applied versions: a 24-item variant for routine clinical monitoring and a 17-item form for use in clinical trials.ConclusionPROs have garnered increased attention and concern in the realm of GD. Despite this progress, it is noteworthy that the instruments used to measure PROs in GD are still predominantly generic instruments. While researchers have endeavored to develop and validate a disease-specific instrument, currently the use of this instrument is limited. Owing to several challenges, including the small number of patients, heterogeneity of the disease, and cross-regional discrepancies in study findings, GD poses substantial difficulties in the measurement of QoL and development of instruments. Consequently, patients with GD require more dependable measurement instruments that accurately reflect their QoL, efficacy of treatment, and facilitate healthcare decision-making.

Project description:Background In healthcare, analysing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on an aggregated level can improve and regulate healthcare for specific patient populations (meso level). This mixed-methods systematic review aimed to summarize and describe the effectiveness of quality improvement methods based on aggregated PROMs. Additionally, it aimed to describe barriers, facilitators and lessons learned when using these quality improvement methods. Methods A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted. Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies that described, implemented or evaluated a quality improvement method based on aggregated PROMs in the curative hospital setting. Quality assessment was conducted via the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Quantitative data were synthesized into a narrative summary of the characteristics and findings. For the qualitative analysis, a thematic synthesis was conducted. Results From 2360 unique search records, 13 quantitative and three qualitative studies were included. Four quality improvement methods were identified: benchmarking, plan-do-study-act cycle, dashboards and internal statistical analysis. Five studies reported on the effectiveness of the use of aggregated PROMs, of which four identified no effect and one a positive effect. The qualitative analysis identified the following themes for facilitators and barriers: (1) conceptual (i.e. stakeholders, subjectivity of PROMs, aligning PROMs with clinical data, PROMs versus patient-reported experience measures [PREMs]); (2a) methodological—data collection (i.e. choice, timing, response rate and focus); (2b) methodological—data processing (i.e. representativeness, responsibility, case-mix control, interpretation); (3) practical (i.e. resources). Conclusion The results showed little to no effect of quality improvement methods based on aggregated PROMs, but more empirical research is needed to investigate different quality improvement methods. A shared stakeholder vision, selection of PROMs, timing of measurement and feedback, information on interpretation of data, reduction of missing data, and resources for data collection and feedback infrastructure are important to consider when implementing and evaluating quality improvement methods in future research. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-022-00893-4. Key messages What is already known on this topic The aggregated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can be used for analytical and organizational aspects of improving and regulating healthcare, but there is little empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of aggregated PROMS. What this study adds This study adds a detailed overview of the types of quality improvement methods and recommendations for implementation in practice. How this study might affect research, practice or policy Researchers and policy-makers should consider the barriers, facilitators and lessons learned for future implementation and evaluation of quality improvement methods, as presented in this manuscript, to further advance this field. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-022-00893-4.

Project description:BackgroundMulti-cancer early detection tests have been developed to enable earlier detection of multiple cancer types through screening. As reflected by patient-reported outcomes (PROs), the psychosocial impact of cancer screening is not yet clear. Our aim is to evaluate the impact of cancer screening through PRO assessment.MethodsA systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and reference lists of articles from January 2000 to August 2020 for relevant publications assessing the psychosocial impact of cancer screening before and within 1 year after screening in the general asymptomatic population, including following receipt of results. Studies focused on diagnostic evaluation or involving patients previously diagnosed with cancer were excluded.ResultsIn total, 31 studies (12 randomized controlled trials; 19 observational studies) were included, reflecting PRO assessments associated with lung, breast, colorectal, anal, ovarian, cervical, and prostate cancer screening procedures. The most commonly assessed construct was symptoms of anxiety, using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Cancer-specific distress and worry were also assessed using a broad range of measures. Overall, individuals tolerated screening procedures well with no major psychosocial effects. Of note, increases in symptoms of anxiety and levels of distress and worry were generally found prior to communication of screening results and following communication of indeterminate or positive results that required further testing. These negative psychosocial effects were, however, not long-lasting and returned to baseline relatively soon after screening. Furthermore, individuals with higher cancer risk, such as current smokers and those with a family history of cancer, tended to have higher levels of anxiety and distress throughout the screening process, including following negative or indeterminate results.ConclusionsThe psychosocial impact of cancer screening is relatively low overall and short-lived, even following false-positive test results. Individuals with a higher risk of cancer tend to experience more symptoms of anxiety and distress during the screening process; thus, more attention to this group is recommended.

Project description:BackgroundLymphoma treatment can lead to long-term consequences such as fatigue, infertility and organ damage. In clinical trials, survival outcomes, clinical response and toxicity are extensively reported while the assessment of treatment on quality of life (QoL) and symptoms is often lacking.ObjectiveWe evaluated the use and frequency of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and their consistency of reporting.MethodsMEDLINE, CENTRAL and trial registries for RCTs investigating HL were systematically searched from 01/01/2016 to 31/05/2022. Following trial selection, trial, patient characteristics and outcome data on the use of PRO measures (PROMs) and reporting of PROs using a pre-defined extraction form were extracted. To assess reporting consistency, trial registries, protocols and publications were compared.ResultsWe identified 4,222 records. Following screening, a total of 317 reports were eligible for full-text evaluation. One hundred sixty-six reports of 51 ongoing/completed trials were included, of which 41% of trials were completed and 49% were ongoing based on registry entries. Full-text or abstract were available for 33 trials. Seventy percent of trials were conducted in the newly diagnosed disease setting, the majority with advanced HL. In 32 trials with published follow-up data, the median follow-up was 5.2 years. Eighteen (35%) completed/ongoing trials had mentioned PRO assessment in registry entries, protocol or publications. Twelve trials (67%) had published results and only 6 trials (50%) reported on PROs in part with the exception of 1 trial where PROs were evaluated as secondary/exploratory outcome. The most referenced global PROM was the EORTC-QLQ-C30 (12 studies), the EQ-5D (3 studies) and the FACT-Neurotoxicity (3 studies). FACT-Lymphoma, a disease-specific PROM for non-HL was mentioned in one ongoing trial. None of the trials referenced the EORTC QLQ-HL27, another disease-specific PROM developed specifically for HL patient's QoL assessment.DiscussionsOnly one-third of RCTs in HL report PROs as an outcome and only half present the outcome in subsequent publications, showcasing the underreporting of PROs in trials. Disease-specific PROMs are underutilized in the assessment of QoL in HL patients. Guidance on the assessment of PROs is needed to inform on comprehensive outcomes important to patients.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=391552, identifier CRD42023391552.