Literature DB >> 22922434

The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: implications for clinical practice and health care policy.

Sara Ahmed1, Richard A Berzon, Dennis A Revicki, William R Lenderking, Carol M Moinpour, Ethan Basch, Bryce B Reeve, Albert W Wu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The goal of comparative effectiveness research (CER) is to explain the differential benefits and harms of alternate methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition or to improve the delivery of care. To inform decision making, information from the patient's perspective that reflects outcomes that patients care about are needed and can be collected rigorously using appropriate patient-reported outcomes (PRO). It can be challenging to select the most appropriate PRO measure given the proliferation of such questionnaires over the past 20 years.
OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we discuss the value of PROs within CER, types of measures that are likely to be useful in the CER context, PRO instrument selection, and key challenges associated with using PROs in CER.
METHODS: We delineate important considerations for defining the CER context, selecting the appropriate measures, and for the analysis and interpretation of PRO data. Emerging changes that may facilitate CER using PROs as an outcome are also reviewed including implementation of electronic and personal health records, hospital and population-based registries, and the use of PROs in national monitoring initiatives. The potential benefits of linking the information derived from PRO endpoints in CER to decision making is also reviewed.
CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations presented for incorporating PROs in CER are intended to provide a guide to researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to ensure that information derived from PROs is applicable and interpretable for a given CER context. In turn, CER will provide information that is necessary for clinicians, patients, and families to make informed care decisions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22922434     DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318268aaff

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  102 in total

1.  On the validity of measuring change over time in routine clinical assessment: a close examination of item-level response shifts in psychosomatic inpatients.

Authors:  S Nolte; A Mierke; H F Fischer; M Rose
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Metastatic breast cancer patients' expectations and priorities for symptom improvement.

Authors:  Danielle B Tometich; Catherine E Mosher; Adam T Hirsh; Kevin L Rand; Shelley A Johns; Marianne S Matthias; Samantha D Outcalt; Bryan P Schneider; Lida Mina; Anna Maria V Storniolo; Erin V Newton; Kathy D Miller
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2018-05-07       Impact factor: 3.603

3.  Understanding social forces involved in diabetes outcomes: a systems science approach to quality-of-life research.

Authors:  David W Lounsbury; Gary B Hirsch; Chawntel Vega; Carolyn E Schwartz
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 4.  A Review of HIV-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

Authors:  Kim Engler; David Lessard; Bertrand Lebouché
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 5.  Comparative effectiveness research in hand surgery.

Authors:  Shepard P Johnson; Kevin C Chung
Journal:  Hand Clin       Date:  2014-06-06       Impact factor: 1.907

6.  Linking Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores from the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) to the PROMIS(®) Global Health Scale.

Authors:  Benjamin D Schalet; Nan E Rothrock; Ron D Hays; Lewis E Kazis; Karon F Cook; Joshua P Rutsohn; David Cella
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 7.  ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Bryce B Reeve; Kathleen W Wyrwich; Albert W Wu; Galina Velikova; Caroline B Terwee; Claire F Snyder; Carolyn Schwartz; Dennis A Revicki; Carol M Moinpour; Lori D McLeod; Jessica C Lyons; William R Lenderking; Pamela S Hinds; Ron D Hays; Joanne Greenhalgh; Richard Gershon; David Feeny; Peter M Fayers; David Cella; Michael Brundage; Sara Ahmed; Neil K Aaronson; Zeeshan Butt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-01-04       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Integrating the use of patient-reported outcomes for both clinical practice and performance measurement: views of experts from 3 countries.

Authors:  Philip J Van Der Wees; Maria W G Nijhuis-Van Der Sanden; John Z Ayanian; Nick Black; Gert P Westert; Eric C Schneider
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.911

9.  Changing patterns of alpha agonist medication use in children and adolescents 2009-2011.

Authors:  Alexander G Fiks; Stephanie L Mayne; Lihai Song; Jennifer Steffes; Weiwei Liu; Banita McCarn; Benyamin Margolis; Alan Grimes; Edward Gotlieb; Russell Localio; Michelle E Ross; Robert W Grundmeier; Richard Wasserman; Laurel K Leslie
Journal:  J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 2.576

10.  Evaluation of patient-reported outcomes data in structured diabetes education intervention: 2-year follow-up data of patient empowerment programme.

Authors:  Carlos K H Wong; Cindy L K Lam; Eric Y F Wan; Anca K C Chan; C H Pak; Frank W K Chan; William C W Wong
Journal:  Endocrine       Date:  2016-09-13       Impact factor: 3.633

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.