Matthias Rose1, Andrea Bezjak. 1. Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, University Clinic Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. m.rose@uke.de
Abstract
PURPOSE: Interest in collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life (HRQOL), health status reports, and patient satisfaction is on the rise and practical aspects of collecting PROs in clinical practice are becoming more important. The purpose of this paper is to draw the attention to a number of issues relevant for a successful integration of PRO measures into the daily work flow of busy clinical settings. METHODS: The paper summarizes the results from a breakout session held at an ISOQOL special topic conference for PRO measures in clinical practice in 2007. RESULTS: Different methodologies of collecting PROs are discussed, and the support needed for each methodology is highlighted. The discussion is illustrated by practical real-life examples from early adaptors who administered paper-pencil, or electronic PRO assessments (ePRO) for more than a decade. The paper also reports about new experiences with more recent technological developments, such as SmartPens and Computer Adaptive Tests (CATs) in daily practice. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological and logistical issues determine the resources needed for a successful integration of PRO measures into daily work flow procedures and influence significantly the usefulness of PRO data for clinical practice.
PURPOSE: Interest in collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life (HRQOL), health status reports, and patient satisfaction is on the rise and practical aspects of collecting PROs in clinical practice are becoming more important. The purpose of this paper is to draw the attention to a number of issues relevant for a successful integration of PRO measures into the daily work flow of busy clinical settings. METHODS: The paper summarizes the results from a breakout session held at an ISOQOL special topic conference for PRO measures in clinical practice in 2007. RESULTS: Different methodologies of collecting PROs are discussed, and the support needed for each methodology is highlighted. The discussion is illustrated by practical real-life examples from early adaptors who administered paper-pencil, or electronic PRO assessments (ePRO) for more than a decade. The paper also reports about new experiences with more recent technological developments, such as SmartPens and Computer Adaptive Tests (CATs) in daily practice. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological and logistical issues determine the resources needed for a successful integration of PRO measures into daily work flow procedures and influence significantly the usefulness of PRO data for clinical practice.
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
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
Authors: Vic Velanovich; Jason Younga; Varun Bhandarkar; Nathan Marshall; Patrick McLaren; Jennifer Ritz; Ilan Rubinfeld Journal: World J Surg Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Joseph M Herman; Sharon M White; Brandon S Luber; Amanda L Blackford; Michael A Carducci; Albert W Wu Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Annet Kleiboer; Katie Gowing; Christian Holm Hansen; Carina Hibberd; Laura Hodges; Jane Walker; Parvez Thekkumpurath; Mark O'Connor; Gordon Murray; Michael Sharpe Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-05-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Roxanne E Jensen; Nan E Rothrock; Esi M DeWitt; Brennan Spiegel; Carole A Tucker; Heidi M Crane; Christopher B Forrest; Donald L Patrick; Rob Fredericksen; Lisa M Shulman; David Cella; Paul K Crane Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 2.983
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
Authors: Sandra D Griffith; Nicolas R Thompson; Jaivir S Rathore; Lara E Jehi; George E Tesar; Irene L Katzan Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 4.147