Literature DB >> 24115397

Inter-provider comparison of patient-reported outcomes: developing an adjustment to account for differences in patient case mix.

David Nuttall1, David Parkin, Nancy Devlin.   

Abstract

This paper describes the development of a methodology for the case-mix adjustment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data permitting the comparison of outcomes between providers on a like-for-like basis. Statistical models that take account of provider-specific effects form the basis of the proposed case-mix adjustment methodology. Indirect standardisation provides a transparent means of case mix adjusting the PROMs data, which are updated on a monthly basis. Recently published PROMs data for patients undergoing unilateral knee replacement are used to estimate empirical models and to demonstrate the application of the proposed case-mix adjustment methodology in practice. The results are illustrative and are used to highlight a number of theoretical and empirical issues that warrant further exploration. For example, because of differences between PROMs instruments, case-mix adjustment methodologies may require instrument-specific approaches. A number of key assumptions are made in estimating the empirical models, which could be open to challenge. The covariates of post-operative health status could be expanded, and alternative econometric methods could be employed.
© 2013 Crown copyright.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PROMs, case-mix adjustment; patient-reported outcomes

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24115397     DOI: 10.1002/hec.2999

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  6 in total

1.  Translation and Adaptation of the Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale (GCOS-24) for Use in Denmark.

Authors:  Birgitte Rode Diness; Gritt Overbeck; Tina Duelund Hjortshøj; Trine Bjørg Hammer; Susanne Timshel; Else Sørensen; Marion McAllister
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-03-06       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Using patient-reported outcome measures as quality indicators in routine cancer care.

Authors:  Angela M Stover; Ethan M Basch
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Comparing patient-reported outcomes across countries: An assessment of methodological challenges.

Authors:  Jason M Sutherland; Shanika Rajapakshe; Trafford Crump; Andrée Chartrand; Guiping Liu; Ahmer Karimuddin
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  2021-02-07

4.  Addressing Missing Data in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS): Implications for the Use of PROMS for Comparing Provider Performance.

Authors:  Manuel Gomes; Nils Gutacker; Chris Bojke; Andrew Street
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  Systematic and continuous collection of patient-reported outcomes and experience in women with cancer undergoing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: a study protocol for the Tuscany Region (Italy).

Authors:  Francesca Ferrè; Sabina De Rosis; Anna Maria Murante; Kendall Jamieson Gilmore; Matteo Ghilli; Donatella Mariniello; Sabina Nuti; Manuela Roncella
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-01-11       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Performance of EQ-5D, howRu and Oxford hip & knee scores in assessing the outcome of hip and knee replacements.

Authors:  Tim Benson; Dan H Williams; Henry W W Potts
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 2.655

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.