Geeske Peeters1,2, Anna L Barker3, Jason Talevski3, Ilana Ackerman3, Darshini R Ayton3, Christopher Reid3,4, Sue M Evans3, Johannes U Stoelwinder3, John J McNeil3. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. geeske.peeters@gbhi.org. 2. Global Brain Health Institute, University of California, San Francisco | Trinity College, Dublin, Trinity College, Lloyd Building, Dublin 2, Ireland. geeske.peeters@gbhi.org. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 4. School of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) capture health information from the patient's perspective that can be used when weighing up benefits, risks and costs of treatment. This is important for elective procedures such as those for coronary revascularisation. Patients should be involved in the development of PROMs to accurately capture outcomes that are important for the patient. The aims of this review are to identify if patients were involved in the development of cardiovascular-specific PROMs used for assessing outcomes from elective coronary revascularisation, and to explore what methods were used to capture patient perspectives. METHODS: PROMs for evaluating outcomes from elective coronary revascularisation were identified from a previous review and an updated systematic search. The studies describing the development of the PROMs were reviewed for information on patient input in their conceptual and/or item development. RESULTS: 24 PROMs were identified from a previous review and three additional PROMs were identified from the updated search. Full texts were obtained for 26 of the 27 PROMs. The 26 studies (11 multidimensional, 15 unidimensional) were reviewed. Only nine studies reported developing PROMs using patient input. For eight PROMs, the inclusion of patient input could not be judged due to insufficient information in the full text. CONCLUSIONS: Only nine of the 26 reviewed PROMs used in elective coronary revascularisation reported involving patients in their conceptual and/or item development, while patient input was unclear for eight PROMs. These findings suggest that the patient's perspective is often overlooked or poorly described in the development of PROMs.
PURPOSE:Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) capture health information from the patient's perspective that can be used when weighing up benefits, risks and costs of treatment. This is important for elective procedures such as those for coronary revascularisation. Patients should be involved in the development of PROMs to accurately capture outcomes that are important for the patient. The aims of this review are to identify if patients were involved in the development of cardiovascular-specific PROMs used for assessing outcomes from elective coronary revascularisation, and to explore what methods were used to capture patient perspectives. METHODS: PROMs for evaluating outcomes from elective coronary revascularisation were identified from a previous review and an updated systematic search. The studies describing the development of the PROMs were reviewed for information on patient input in their conceptual and/or item development. RESULTS: 24 PROMs were identified from a previous review and three additional PROMs were identified from the updated search. Full texts were obtained for 26 of the 27 PROMs. The 26 studies (11 multidimensional, 15 unidimensional) were reviewed. Only nine studies reported developing PROMs using patient input. For eight PROMs, the inclusion of patient input could not be judged due to insufficient information in the full text. CONCLUSIONS: Only nine of the 26 reviewed PROMs used in elective coronary revascularisation reported involving patients in their conceptual and/or item development, while patient input was unclear for eight PROMs. These findings suggest that the patient's perspective is often overlooked or poorly described in the development of PROMs.
Entities:
Keywords:
Coronary artery disease; Patient-reported outcome measures; Percutaneous coronary intervention; Quality of life
Authors: Kathryn Eilene Lasch; Patrick Marquis; Marc Vigneux; Linda Abetz; Benoit Arnould; Martha Bayliss; Bruce Crawford; Kathleen Rosa Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-05-30 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Robert L McNamara; Erica S Spatz; Thomas A Kelley; Caleb J Stowell; John Beltrame; Paul Heidenreich; Ricard Tresserras; Tomas Jernberg; Terrance Chua; Louise Morgan; Bishnu Panigrahi; Alba Rosas Ruiz; John S Rumsfeld; Lawrence Sadwin; Mark Schoeberl; David Shahian; Clive Weston; Robert Yeh; Jack Lewin Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Sze-Ee Soh; Anna L Barker; Darshini R Ayton; Susannah Ahern; Renata Morello; Jeffrey Lefkovits; Angela L Brennan; Susan Evans; John R Zalcberg; Christopher M Reid; John J McNeil Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anna L Barker; Geeske Peeters; Renata T Morello; Richard Norman; Darshini Ayton; Jeffrey Lefkovits; Angela Brennan; Sue M Evans; John Zalcberg; Christopher Reid; Susannah Ahern; Sze-Ee Soh; Johannes Stoelwinder; John J McNeil Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 2.692