Literature DB >> 19105048

The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why?

Joanne Greenhalgh1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Precisely defining the different applications of patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) in clinical practice can be difficult. This is because the intervention is complex and varies amongst different studies in terms of the type of PRO used, how the PRO is fed back, and to whom it is fed back.
METHODS: A theory-driven approach is used to describe six different applications of PROs in clinical practice. The evidence for the impact of these applications on the process and outcomes of care are summarised. Possible explanations for the limited impact of PROs on patient management are then discussed and directions for future research are highlighted.
RESULTS: The applications of PROs in clinical practice include screening tools, monitoring tools, as a method of promoting patient-centred care, as a decision aid, as a method of facilitating communication amongst multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), and as a means of monitoring the quality of patient care. Evidence from randomised controlled trials suggests that the use of PROs in clinical practice is valuable in improving the discussion and detection of HRQoL problems but has less of an impact on how clinicians manage patient problems or on subsequent patient outcomes. Many of the reasons for this may lie in the ways in which PROs fit (or do not fit) into the routine ways in which patients and clinicians communicate with each other, how clinicians make decisions, and how healthcare as a whole is organised.
CONCLUSIONS: Future research needs to identify ways in with PROs can be better incorporated into the routine care of patients by combining qualitative and quantitative methods and adopting appropriate trial designs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19105048     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-008-9430-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  75 in total

Review 1.  The enduring and evolving nature of the patient-physician relationship.

Authors:  D Roter
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2000-01

2.  Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Symone B Detmar; Martin J Muller; Jan H Schornagel; Lidwina D V Wever; Neil K Aaronson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-12-18       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Relationship of communication and information measures to colorectal cancer screening utilization: results from HINTS.

Authors:  Bruce S Ling; William M Klein; Qianyu Dang
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2006

4.  Determinants of the ability of general practitioners to detect psychiatric illness.

Authors:  J N Marks; D P Goldberg; V F Hillier
Journal:  Psychol Med       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 7.723

5.  The patient-physician relationship. Patient-physician communication during outpatient palliative treatment visits: an observational study.

Authors:  S B Detmar; M J Muller; L D Wever; J H Schornagel; N K Aaronson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-03-14       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 6.  Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review.

Authors:  Susan Marshall; Kirstie Haywood; Ray Fitzpatrick
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.431

7.  Improving patient quality of life with feedback to physicians about functional status.

Authors:  L V Rubenstein; J M McCoy; D W Cope; P A Barrett; S H Hirsch; K S Messer; R T Young
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Unrecognised depression in general practice.

Authors:  P Freeling; B M Rao; E S Paykel; L I Sireling; R H Burton
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1985-06-22

9.  Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Galina Velikova; Laura Booth; Adam B Smith; Paul M Brown; Pamela Lynch; Julia M Brown; Peter J Selby
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-02-15       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Case-mix & patients' reports of outcome in Independent Sector Treatment Centres: Comparison with NHS providers.

Authors:  John Browne; Liz Jamieson; Jim Lewsey; Jan van der Meulen; Lynn Copley; Nick Black
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2008-04-09       Impact factor: 2.655

View more
  189 in total

1.  Identifying changes in scores on the EORTC-QLQ-C30 representing a change in patients' supportive care needs.

Authors:  Claire F Snyder; Amanda L Blackford; Jonathan Sussman; Daryl Bainbridge; Doris Howell; Hsien Y Seow; Michael A Carducci; Albert W Wu
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-11-15       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  How do idiopathic scoliosis patients who improve after surgery differ from those who do not exceed a minimum detectable change?

Authors:  Joan Bago; Francisco Javier Sanchez Perez-Grueso; Ferran Pellise; Esther Les
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Automated monitoring of symptoms during ambulatory chemotherapy and oncology providers' use of the information: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Kathi H Mooney; Susan L Beck; Robert H Friedman; Ramesh Farzanfar; Bob Wong
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 3.603

4.  Data collection challenges in community settings: insights from two field studies of patients with chronic disease.

Authors:  Richard J Holden; Amanda M McDougald Scott; Peter L T Hoonakker; Ann S Hundt; Pascale Carayon
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-08-26       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  The prognostic performance of adding patient-reported outcomes to the MASCC risk index to identify low-risk febrile neutropenia patients with solid tumors and lymphomas.

Authors:  Xiao Jun Wang; Denise Yun Ting Goh; Sreemanee Raaj Dorajoo; Alexandre Chan
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2017-04-11       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 6.  Development of an online library of patient-reported outcome measures in gastroenterology: the GI-PRO database.

Authors:  Puja Khanna; Nikhil Agarwal; Dinesh Khanna; Ron D Hays; Lin Chang; Roger Bolus; Gil Melmed; Cynthia B Whitman; Robert M Kaplan; Rikke Ogawa; Bradley Snyder; Brennan Mr Spiegel
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-12-17       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  One-Year Linear Trajectories of Symptoms, Physical Functioning, Cognitive Functioning, Emotional Well-being, and Spiritual Well-being Among Patients Receiving Dialysis.

Authors:  Mi-Kyung Song; Sudeshna Paul; Sandra E Ward; Constance A Gilet; Gerald A Hladik
Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 8.860

Review 8.  Methods for improving the quality of palliative care delivery: a systematic review.

Authors:  Brandyn D Lau; Rebecca A Aslakson; Renee F Wilson; Oluwakemi A Fawole; Colleen C Apostol; Kathryn A Martinez; Daniela Vollenweider; Eric B Bass; Sydney E Morss Dy
Journal:  Am J Hosp Palliat Care       Date:  2013-03-26       Impact factor: 2.500

9.  Using the EORTC-QLQ-C30 in clinical practice for patient management: identifying scores requiring a clinician's attention.

Authors:  Claire F Snyder; Amanda L Blackford; Toru Okuyama; Tatsuo Akechi; Hiroko Yamashita; Tatsuya Toyama; Michael A Carducci; Albert W Wu
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  A clinical perspective on electronically collecting patient-reported outcomes at the point-of-care for overactive bladder.

Authors:  Darren Desantis; Richard J Baverstock; Andrea Civitarese; R Trafford Crump; Kevin V Carlson
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2016-11-10       Impact factor: 1.862

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.