Michael L Pezold1, Andrea L Pusic2, Wess A Cohen2, James P Hollenberg3, Zeeshan Butt4, David R Flum5, Larissa K Temple6. 1. Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical Center-New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York. 2. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 4. Departments of Medical Social Sciences, Surgery, and Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle. 6. Colorectal Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
Importance: Identifying timely and important research questions using relevant patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in surgery remains paramount in the current medical climate. The inaugural Patient-Reported Outcomes in Surgery (PROS) Conference brought together stakeholders in PROs research in surgery with the aim of creating a research agenda to help determine future directions and advance cross-disciplinary collaboration. Objective: To create a research agenda to help determine future directions and advance cross-disciplinary collaboration on the use of PROs in surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: An iterative web-based interface was used to create a conference-based, modified Delphi survey for registrants at the PROS Conference (January 29-30, 2015), including surgeons, PRO researchers, payers, and other stakeholders. In round 1, research items were generated from qualitative review of responses to open-ended prompts. In round 2, items were ranked using a 5-point Likert scale; attendees were also asked to submit any new items. In round 3, the top 30 items and newly submitted items were redistributed for final ranking using a 3-point Likert scale. The top 20 items by mean rating were selected for the research agenda. Main Outcomes and Measures: An expert-generated research agenda on PROs in surgery. Results: Of the 143 people registered for the conference, 137 provided valid email addresses. There was a wide range of attendees, with the 3 most common groups being plastic surgeons (28 [19.6%]), general surgeons (19 [13.3%]), and researchers (25 [17.5%]). In round 1, participants submitted 459 items, which were reduced through qualitative review to 53 distinct items across 7 themes of PROs research. A research agenda was formulated after 2 successive rounds of ranking. The research agenda identified 3 themes important for future PROs research in surgery: (1) PROs in the decision-making process, (2) integrating PROs into the electronic health record, and (3) measuring quality in surgery with PROs. Conclusions and Relevance: The PROS Conference research agenda was created using a modified Delphi survey of stakeholders that will help researchers, surgeons, and funders identify crucial areas of future PROs research in surgery.
Importance: Identifying timely and important research questions using relevant patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in surgery remains paramount in the current medical climate. The inaugural Patient-Reported Outcomes in Surgery (PROS) Conference brought together stakeholders in PROs research in surgery with the aim of creating a research agenda to help determine future directions and advance cross-disciplinary collaboration. Objective: To create a research agenda to help determine future directions and advance cross-disciplinary collaboration on the use of PROs in surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: An iterative web-based interface was used to create a conference-based, modified Delphi survey for registrants at the PROS Conference (January 29-30, 2015), including surgeons, PRO researchers, payers, and other stakeholders. In round 1, research items were generated from qualitative review of responses to open-ended prompts. In round 2, items were ranked using a 5-point Likert scale; attendees were also asked to submit any new items. In round 3, the top 30 items and newly submitted items were redistributed for final ranking using a 3-point Likert scale. The top 20 items by mean rating were selected for the research agenda. Main Outcomes and Measures: An expert-generated research agenda on PROs in surgery. Results: Of the 143 people registered for the conference, 137 provided valid email addresses. There was a wide range of attendees, with the 3 most common groups being plastic surgeons (28 [19.6%]), general surgeons (19 [13.3%]), and researchers (25 [17.5%]). In round 1, participants submitted 459 items, which were reduced through qualitative review to 53 distinct items across 7 themes of PROs research. A research agenda was formulated after 2 successive rounds of ranking. The research agenda identified 3 themes important for future PROs research in surgery: (1) PROs in the decision-making process, (2) integrating PROs into the electronic health record, and (3) measuring quality in surgery with PROs. Conclusions and Relevance: The PROS Conference research agenda was created using a modified Delphi survey of stakeholders that will help researchers, surgeons, and funders identify crucial areas of future PROs research in surgery.
Authors: Caroline G Burt; Robert R Cima; Walter A Koltun; Charles E Littlejohn; Rocco Ricciardi; Larissa K Temple; David A Rothenberger; Nancy N Baxter Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Andrea L Pusic; Anne F Klassen; Amie M Scott; Jennifer A Klok; Peter G Cordeiro; Stefan J Cano Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Carol A Mancuso; Suzanne Graziano; Lisa M Briskie; Margaret G E Peterson; Paul M Pellicci; Eduardo A Salvati; Thomas P Sculco Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2008-01-10 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: David Cella; Susan Yount; Nan Rothrock; Richard Gershon; Karon Cook; Bryce Reeve; Deborah Ader; James F Fries; Bonnie Bruce; Mattias Rose Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Christopher J Dy; Alison L Antes; Daniel A Osei; Charles A Goldfarb; James M DuBois Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Sayf S A Faraj; Miranda L van Hooff; Roderick M Holewijn; David W Polly; Tsjitske M Haanstra; Marinus de Kleuver Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Katelyn G Bennett; Ji Qi; Hyungjin M Kim; Jennifer B Hamill; Edwin G Wilkins; Babak J Mehrara; Jeffrey H Kozlow Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Lauren V Kuykendall; Angie Zhang; Bugra Tugertimur; Sara Bijan; Corin Agoris; Ambuj Kumar; Deniz Dayicioglu Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2018 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 3.302
Authors: William Sones; Steven A Julious; Joanne C Rothwell; Craig Robert Ramsay; Lisa V Hampson; Richard Emsley; Stephen J Walters; Catherine Hewitt; Martin Bland; Dean A Fergusson; Jesse A Berlin; Doug Altman; Luke David Vale; Jonathan Alistair Cook Journal: Trials Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 2.279