Types Of Patient-reported Outcome Measures Research Articles

Uptake of pediatric patient-reported outcome and experience measures and challenges associated with their implementation in Alberta: a mixed-methods study

BackgroundImplementing Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Patient-reported Experience Measures (PREMs) is an effective way to deliver patient- and family-centered care (PFCC). Although Alberta Health Services (AHS) is Canada's largest and fully integrated health system, PROMs and PREMs are yet to be routinely integrated into the pediatric healthcare system. This study addresses this gap by investigating the current uptake, barriers, and enablers for integrating PROMs and PREMs in Alberta's pediatric healthcare system.MethodsPediatric clinicians and academic researchers with experience using PROMs and PREMs were invited to complete a quantitative survey. Additionally, key stakeholders were qualitatively interviewed to understand current challenges in implementing pediatric PROMs and PREMs within AHS. Quantitative data gathered from 22 participants were descriptively analyzed, and qualitative data from 14 participants were thematically analyzed.ResultsParticipants identified 33 PROMs and 6 PREMs showing diversity in the types of pediatric PROMs and PREMs currently being used in Alberta and their mode of administration. The qualitatively identified challenges were associated with patients, family caregivers, and clinicians. The absence of system-level support, such as integration within electronic medical records, is considered a significant system-level challenge.ConclusionsThe significant variation in the types of PROMs and PREMs used, the rationale for their use, and their mode of administration demonstrate the diverse and sporadic use of these measures in Alberta. These findings highlight the need for province-wide uniform implementation of pediatric PROMs and PREMs in Alberta. Our results could benefit healthcare organizations in developing evidence-based PROM and PREM implementation strategies in pediatrics.

Digitalising patient reported outcome collection tools in orthopaedic trauma–A scoping review

AimsThe aim of this study was to provide a scoping review to the role of digital technology in the collection of orthopaedic trauma related patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) MethodsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews and Arksey and O'Malley frameworks were followed. A search strategy identified relevant literature, with the identified criteria screened for acceptability for inclusion. Data was extracted to form a descriptive analysis. ResultsSix studies met the criteria for inclusion. All were quantitative, the majority were published in the United States of America and the use of iPads was the commonest form of digital technology used. Heterogeneity existed in the type of outcomes collected between studies. All studies aimed to compare traditional methods of PROMs collection to digital methods, with an overall thematic summary suggestive of the positive impact of electronic methods of collecting patient reported outcomes. ConclusionThis paper has demonstrated the dearth of ePROM implementation in the orthopaedic trauma setting, however its use has proved successful and therefore further evidence is needed to demonstrate its effectiveness. Furthermore, the types of PROMs in orthopaedic trauma varies significantly, and efforts to standardise the type of digital trauma PROMs used are recommended.

Patient-reported outcome measures for masticatory function in adults: a systematic review

ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for masticatory function in adults.MethodsFive electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL Plus and APA PsycINFO) were searched up to March 2021. Studies reporting development or validation of PROMs for masticatory function on adults were identified. Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist. Psychometric properties of the PROM in each included study were rated against the criteria for good measurement properties based on the COSMIN guideline.ResultsTwenty-three studies investigating 19 PROMs were included. Methodological qualities of these studies were diverse. Four types of PROMs were identified: questions using food items to assess masticatory function (13 PROMs), questions on chewing problems (3 PROMs), questions using both food items and chewing problems (2 PROMs) and a global question (1 PROM). Only a few of these PROMs, namely chewing function questionnaire-Chinese, Croatian or Albanian, food intake questionnaire-Japanese, new food intake questionnaire-Japanese, screening for masticatory disorders in older adults and perceived difficulty of chewing-Tanzania demonstrated high or moderate level of evidence in several psychometric properties.ConclusionsCurrently, there is no PROM for masticatory function in adults with high-level evidence for all psychometric properties. There are variations in the psychometric properties among the different reported PROMs.Trial Registration PROSPERO (CRD42020171591).

Clinicians\u2019 perceived value and demographic factors that predict the utilisation of patient reported outcome measures for low back pain amongst chiropractors in Australia

BackgroundFactors that influence utilisation rates of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for low back pain (LBP) within the chiropractic profession of Australia are currently unknown. This study aimed to examine whether factors, including age, sex, experience level, clinical title (principal vs associate), or a clinicians’ perceived value of PROMs, are predictive of the frequency and/or type of PROMs used by chiropractors in the management of LBP.MethodsA cross sectional online survey was distributed to members of the Chiropractic Association of Australia (CAA now known as Australian Chiropractors Association-ACA) and Chiropractic Australia (CA). 3,014 CAA members and 930 CA members were invited to participate totaling 3,944, only respondents that were using PROMs were included in the analysis (n = 370). Ordinal logistic regression was used to examine associations between clinician demographics and perceived value of PROMs, and the frequency of pain, health, and functional patient reported outcome measure (PROM) usage by chiropractors.ResultsPrincipal chiropractors were more likely (Wald = 4.101, p = 0.04, OR = 1.4 (1.0–2.1)) than associate chiropractors to frequently use pain-related PROMs for the management of patients with LBP. The remaining demographic factors (age, sex, and experience level) were not associated with the frequency of PROM usage; nor were the perceived value clinicians place on PROMs in clinical practice.ConclusionPrincipal chiropractors were more likely to frequently use pain-related PROMs for the management of patients with LBP when compared to associate chiropractors. Demographic factors, appear to have little influence on PROM usage. While chiropractors place high value on PROMs, these beliefs are not associated with increased frequency of PROM usage for the management of LBP.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Sarcoma: A scoping review.

Sarcoma is a heterogeneous group of tumours, usually affecting young patients and related to both endogenous and exogenous risk factors. The importance of obtaining the patient's perspective of the illness experience is imperative. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are the outcomes that come directly from the patient. They include symptoms, functional health, well-being, quality of life, psychological issues, among other indicators reported by the patients. The objective of this scoping review was to map the PROs in sarcoma patients and how they are measured. The review process was guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for scoping reviews. The search identified 116 potentially relevant studies, with 27 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. The most common PRO evaluated in the selected studies were health-related quality of life (HRQoL), followed by functional outcome, aspects of mental health, and specific symptoms. Generic HRQoL questionnaires were widely used. Quantitative studies usually applied more than one type of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) to measure different PROs. PROs should be carefully analysed to better understand the sarcoma patient's needs. The PROMs used in the selected studies about sarcoma were not specific to sarcoma, therefore, to better reflect on the perceptions of sarcoma patients, a different new and specific measurement strategy should be considered.

The Patient Perspective on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Following Elective Hand Surgery: A Convergent Mixed-Methods Analysis

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have traditionally been used for research purposes, but are now being used to evaluate outcomes from the patient's perspective and inform ongoing management and quality of care. We used quantitative and qualitative approaches to evaluate the short-version Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) with regard to patient preference and measurement of patient goals and their responsiveness after treatment. Patients 18 years or older undergoing elective hand surgery received the QuickDASH and PSFS questionnaires before and at 6 weeks after surgery. Two additional questions intended to elicit patients' preferences regarding the QuickDASH and PSFS were included. Responsiveness was measured by change in pre- to postoperative score. We analyzed patients' responses to the 2 additional questions to identify themes in PROM preferences. Results from the quantitative and qualitative analyses were combined into a convergent mixed-methods (eg, quantitative and qualitative) analysis. Thirty-eight patients completed preoperative questionnaires; 25 (66%) completed postoperative questionnaires. Seventeen patients (77%) preferred the PSFS, 3 (14%) had no preference, 2 (9%) preferred the QuickDASH. The average change from pre- to postoperative QuickDASH was -10 (SD, 20), and that of the PSFS was -27 (SD, 26). Ten patients (40%) reported QuickDASH score changes above the minimal clinically importance difference (MCID), 17 patients (68%) reported PSFS score changes above the MCID. Content analysis revealed 4 themes in preference for a PROM: instrument simplicity (ease of instrument understanding and completion), personalized assessment (individualization and relevance), goal directed (having measurable aims or objectives), distinct items (concrete or specific instrument items or functions). Most patients felt the PSFS better measured their goals because it is a simple, personalized instrument with distinct domains. Whereas standardized PROMs may better compare across populations, physicians, or conditions, employing PROMs that address patient-specific goals may better assess aspects of care most important to patients. A combination of these 2 types of PROMs can be used to assess outcomes and inform quality of care.

A cluster randomized controlled trial for the Evaluation of routinely Measured PATient reported outcomes in HemodialYsis care (EMPATHY): a study protocol

BackgroundKidney failure requiring dialysis is associated with poor health outcomes and health-related quality of life (HRQL). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) capture symptom burden, level of functioning and other outcomes from a patient perspective, and can support clinicians to monitor disease progression, address symptoms, and facilitate patient-centered care. While evidence suggests the use of PROMs in clinical practice can lead to improved patient experience in some settings, the impact on patients’ health outcomes and experiences is not fully understood, and their cost-effectiveness in clinical settings is unknown. This study aims to fill these gaps by evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routinely measuring PROMs on patient-reported experience, clinical outcomes, HRQL, and healthcare utilization.MethodsThe EMPATHY trial is a pragmatic multi-centre cluster randomized controlled trial that will implement and evaluate the use of disease-specific and generic PROMs in three kidney care programs in Canada. In-centre hemodialysis units will be randomized into four groups, whereby patients: 1) complete a disease-specific PROM; 2) complete a generic PROM; 3) complete both types of PROMs; 4) receive usual care and do not complete any PROMs. While clinical care pathways are available to all hemodialysis units in the study, for the three active intervention groups, the results of the PROMs will be linked to treatment aids for clinicians and patients. The primary outcome of this study is patient-provider communication, assessed by the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT). Secondary outcomes include patient management and symptoms, use of healthcare services, and the costs of implementing this intervention will also be estimated. The present protocol fulfilled the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Intervention Trials (SPIRIT) checklist.DiscussionWhile using PROMs in clinical practice is supported by theory and rationale, and may engage patients and enhance their role in decisions regarding their care and outcomes, the best approach of their use is still uncertain. It is important to rigorously evaluate such interventions and investments to ensure they provide value for patients and health systems.Trial registrationProtocol version (1.0) and trial registration data are available on www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT03535922, registered May 24, 2018.

Measures of visual disturbance in patients receiving extended depth-of-focus or trifocal intraocular lenses.

The degree of visual disturbance associated with a particular model of intraocular lens (IOL) depends on several factors, including IOL optic, material, and mechanics. Characterization of visual disturbance profiles is paramount for informing clinical IOL selection. Although many studies evaluating presbyopia-correcting IOLs include subjective assessment of visual symptoms, the types of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to capture these outcomes are inconsistent across studies, complicating data contextualization. Furthermore, some tools produce more meaningful results than others. This review presents a discussion on the scientific literature published on the subjective and semiobjective (halo and glare simulator, light-distortion analyzer, vision monitor, and halometers) methods used to assess visual disturbances in patients implanted with trifocal or extended depth-of-focus IOLs, highlighting their advantages and limitations. It underscores the importance of between-study comparisons and the need for standardized PROMs in clinical IOL research to provide more accurate information for IOL selection.

Improving the response rate of patient-reported outcome measures in an Australian tertiary metropolitan hospital.

Background: The benefits of collecting patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for clinical care are widely accepted; however, the collection and response rate remain a significant barrier.Objective: The objective of this study was to assess predictors of successful PROM response rate in an orthopedic outpatient setting at a public tertiary hospital.Method: A prospective cohort study was conducted at a metropolitan hospital assessing the response rate after a number of interventions in the collection of PROMs in the orthopedic outpatient setting. All patients were invited to complete a PROM relevant to their presenting condition. Eight cohorts were studied, all different in the process of collection, the timing of collection and the physical environment of collection. Analysis was completed in Stata v14.1 with collin commands used to assess collinearity. A multiple logistic regression model and a mixed effect logistic regression model were performed and compared. The significance level of p<0.05 was used.Results: During the trial period 2,338 patients were seen. Response rates as high as 81% were seen, which was significantly improved compared with the earliest six cohorts (p<0.01). Being younger; being a new patient; having a longer wait time; having an English-speaking background and being a pre- or post-operative patient were all associated with an increased response rate of PROMs. Gender, the patient’s pathology and the type of PROM did not significantly affect the response rate.Conclusions: The method employed to invite and inform patients of the PROM collection, and the environment in which it is undertaken, significantly alter the response rate in the completion of PROMs. Being younger, being a new patient, having a longer wait time, being English speaking, being a pre-op or post-op patient were all associated with an increase in response rate.

Factors associated with the magnitude of limitations during recovery from a fracture of the proximal humerus: predictors of limitations after proximal humerus fracture.

The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with limitations in function, measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), six to nine months after a proximal humeral fracture, from a range of demographic, injury, psychological, and social variables measured within a week and two to four weeks after injury. We enrolled 177 adult patients who sustained an isolated proximal humeral fracture into the study and invited them to complete PROMs at their initial outpatient visit within one week of injury, between two and four weeks, and between six to nine months after injury. There were 128 women and 49 men; the mean age was 66 years (sd 16; 18 to 95). In all, 173 patients completed the final assessment. Bivariate analysis was performed followed by multivariable regression analysis accounting for multicollinearity using partial R2, correlation matrices, and variable inflation factor. Many variables within a week of injury and between two and four weeks after injury correlated with six- to nine-month PROMs in bivariate analysis. Kinesiophobia measured within a week of injury (Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia-11: partial R2 = 0.14; p = 0.000) and self-efficacy measured between two and four weeks (Pain Self-efficacy Questionnaire-2: partial R2 = 0.266; p < 0.001) were the strongest predictors of limitations (measured by Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Upper Extremity Physical Function Computer Adaptive Test (PROMIS UE)) at six to nine months in multivariable analysis. Similar findings were observed with other types of PROM. Regression models accounted for a substantial amount of variance in all PROMs at both timepoints (e.g. 66% of the overall variance within one week, and 70% within two to four weeks for PROMIS UE at six to nine months). Recovery from a proximal humeral fracture appears to be enhanced by overcoming fears of movement or reinjury within a week after injury and greater self-efficacy (developing resilience and more effective coping strategies) within a month. Such factors are modifiable using enhanced communication skills and cognitive behavioural treatments. These findings could be a catalyst for the routine assessment and treatment of psychological and social factors in the management of patients with fractures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:715-723.

Comparison of the construct validity and reproducibility of four different types of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in the assessment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to assess the construct validity and reproducibility of four types of PROMs (numerical rating scale (NRS), visual analogue scale (VAS), verbal rating scale (VRS), and Likert scale). In addition, patients’ preference for one of these PROMs was measured. Patients with stable RA and no change in pain medication or steroid medication (n = 211) were asked to complete a questionnaire directly following, and 5 days after their outpatient visit. The questionnaire measured the validity of the PROMs in four domains (pain, fatigue, experienced disease activity, and general well-being). To assess construct validity, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated using the Disease Activity Score-3. To assess reproducibility, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated. Correlation coefficients between the different PROMs within each domain were compared. There were no differences regarding construct validity between the different PROM scale types. Regarding reproducibility, VAS and NRS scored better in the domains pain and experienced disease activity. Patients chose NRS as preferred measurement method, with the VAS in second place. The four scale types of PROMs appeared to be equally valid to assess pain, fatigue, experienced disease activity, and general well-being. VAS and NRS appeared to be more reliable for measuring pain and experienced disease activity. The patients favoured NRS. In combination with other practical advantages of NRS over VAS, we do advise the NRS as the preferred scale type for PROMs.

Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials on age-related macular degeneration

Background/aimsThe purpose of this systematic review was to identify the frequency and type of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for age-related macular degeneration (AMD).MethodsThe...

A systematic review on patient‐reported outcomes in cancer survivors of randomised clinical trials: direction for future research

With increasing expectations of a 5-year survival rate among cancer patients, there is growing interest in patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, particularly measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in cancer practice. The purpose of this review was to explore the existing interventions for patients coping with cancer in terms of intervention type, PRO measurements and outcomes; and to identify directions for future research. Systematic review of randomised clinical trials. A systematic search of four databases was conducted to identify articles published in English or Chinese from January 2000 to July 2013. Studies were located using an electronic search, a manual search and an author search. A total of 34 articles corresponding to 33 original studies were identified and included in this review. These interventions were classified under four broad categories according to their approaches: psycho-education (15), case management (13), exercise (4) and feedback of PRO (1). The PRO measures covered different types of PRO measures, including HRQOL, functional status, symptom status, overall well-being and satisfaction with care. Positive outcomes of more than 70% (24) out of these interventions were reported. These findings highlight the significant outcomes of cancer patient interventions that applied PRO measures to evaluate their outcomes. A theory-driven and careful design of the programme should be considered in the whole process of developing, delivering and assessing the programmes. Collaboration among patients, clinicians, researchers and policy makers is crucial to ensure the development of effective and accessible interventions targeting improving cancer survivors' HRQOL.

Patient-reported outcome measures and how they are used

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used in the NHS to inform clinical treatments and even the funding of individual healthcare providers. This article examines the background to their increasing use. It aims to provide nurses with information and advice about resources to increase their knowledge of PROMs. It outlines the importance of patient-centred outcomes, describes the different types of PROMs and their use in clinical practice.

Patient reported outcome measures in ophthalmology

Ophthalmic care providers are experiencing pressure to improve the quality of care, effectiveness and efficiency with which clinical care is delivered. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are an effective mechanism for determining high quality care and identifying areas for improvement. Information obtained from PROMs is useful in discerning the patient experience as well as whether patients perceive their health outcomes have been achieved. Clinicians involved in ophthalmic care are well placed to determine the type of PROM to be used with their patient population as well as implementing changes to healthcare delivery subsequent to PROM data collection, assessment and evaluation.

Using patient reported outcome measures to improve patient care

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are an effective mechanism for gauging the patient experience as well as whether patients perceive their health outcomes have been achieved. Gastrointestinal nurses need to understand and determine the type of PROM to be used with their patient population in order to help improve the patient experience, argue Nicola Whiteing and Carol Cox.

Patient‐reported outcome I: Measuring what matters in musculoskeletal care

Patients have an important role to play in communicating the impact of disease and the effectiveness of health care. Well-developed patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can provide a clinically relevant and scientifically rigorous resource for including the patient perspective in decisions about health care and subsequent evaluation. This article will introduce readers to the field of health outcome assessment, and specifically to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The reasons for measuring health, different types of PROMs and potential applications will be discussed. A second article will present important information for users of PROMs to consider when selecting and using PROMs in research, routine practice or quality assurance.