OBJECTIVES: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) created the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) to allow efficient, online measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), but it remains untested whether PROMIS improves outcomes. Here, we aimed to compare the impact of gastrointestinal (GI) PROMIS measures vs. usual care on patient outcomes. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic clinical trial with an off-on study design alternating weekly between intervention (GI PROMIS) and controlarms at one Veterans Affairs and three university-affiliated specialty clinics. Adults with GI symptoms were eligible. Intervention patients completed GI PROMIS symptom questionnaires on an e-portal 1 week before their visit; PROs were available for review by patients and their providers before and during the clinic visit. Usual care patients were managed according to customary practices. Our primary outcome was patient satisfaction as determined by the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included provider interpersonal skills (Doctors' Interpersonal Skills Questionnaire (DISQ)) and shared decision-making (9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9)). RESULTS: There were 217 and 154 patients in the GI PROMIS and control arms, respectively. Patient satisfaction was similar between groups (P>0.05). Intervention patients had similar assessments of their providers' interpersonal skills (DISQ 89.4±11.7 vs. 89.8±16.0, P=0.79) and shared decision-making (SDM-Q-9 79.3±12.4 vs. 79.0±22.0, P=0.85) vs. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first controlled trial examining the impact of NIH PROMIS in clinical practice. One-time use of GI PROMIS did not improve patient satisfaction or assessment of provider interpersonal skills and shared decision-making. Future studies examining how to optimize PROs in clinical practice are encouraged before widespread adoption.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) created the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) to allow efficient, online measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), but it remains untested whether PROMIS improves outcomes. Here, we aimed to compare the impact of gastrointestinal (GI) PROMIS measures vs. usual care on patient outcomes. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic clinical trial with an off-on study design alternating weekly between intervention (GI PROMIS) and control arms at one Veterans Affairs and three university-affiliated specialty clinics. Adults with GI symptoms were eligible. Intervention patients completed GI PROMIS symptom questionnaires on an e-portal 1 week before their visit; PROs were available for review by patients and their providers before and during the clinic visit. Usual care patients were managed according to customary practices. Our primary outcome was patient satisfaction as determined by the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included provider interpersonal skills (Doctors' Interpersonal Skills Questionnaire (DISQ)) and shared decision-making (9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9)). RESULTS: There were 217 and 154 patients in the GI PROMIS and control arms, respectively. Patient satisfaction was similar between groups (P>0.05). Intervention patients had similar assessments of their providers' interpersonal skills (DISQ 89.4±11.7 vs. 89.8±16.0, P=0.79) and shared decision-making (SDM-Q-9 79.3±12.4 vs. 79.0±22.0, P=0.85) vs. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first controlled trial examining the impact of NIH PROMIS in clinical practice. One-time use of GI PROMIS did not improve patient satisfaction or assessment of provider interpersonal skills and shared decision-making. Future studies examining how to optimize PROs in clinical practice are encouraged before widespread adoption.
Authors: J M Valderas; A Kotzeva; M Espallargues; G Guyatt; C E Ferrans; M Y Halyard; D A Revicki; T Symonds; A Parada; J Alonso Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-01-04 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Brennan M R Spiegel; Ron D Hays; Roger Bolus; Gil Y Melmed; Lin Chang; Cynthia Whitman; Puja P Khanna; Sylvia H Paz; Tonya Hays; Steve Reise; Dinesh Khanna Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-09-09 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Vivek Nagaraja; Ron D Hays; Puja P Khanna; Brennan M R Spiegel; Lin Chang; Gil Y Melmed; Roger Bolus; Dinesh Khanna Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Robert M Cronin; Douglas Conway; David Condon; Rebecca N Jerome; Daniel W Byrne; Paul A Harris Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Shahzad Ahmed; Christopher V Almario; William D Chey; Lori A Robbins; Bianca Chang; Joseph Ahn; Jeffrey Ko; Phillip Gu; Alvin Siu; Brennan M R Spiegel Journal: Inform Health Soc Care Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 2.439
Authors: Bharati Kochar; Christopher F Martin; Michael D Kappelman; Brennan M Spiegel; Wenli Chen; Robert S Sandler; Millie D Long Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-08-29 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Brennan M R Spiegel; Christopher V Almario; Natalie J Hall; Sameer K Berry; Jack Aguilar; Elizabeth Brier; Parth Shah; Derek Cheng; Jeremy Herman; Theodore Stein Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2021-05-04
Authors: France Légaré; Rhéda Adekpedjou; Dawn Stacey; Stéphane Turcotte; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Ian D Graham; Anne Lyddiatt; Mary C Politi; Richard Thomson; Glyn Elwyn; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-07-19