OBJECTIVE: Youth with chronic illness are at higher risk for psychosocial difficulties, leading to a call for screening via patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The purpose of the current review is to summarize PRO implementation in pediatric medical specialty settings. A literature review of PRO implementation in these settings, conceptual issues, value and approach, legal and ethical concerns, as well as a case example of PROA in type 1 diabetes are presented. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify relevant articles published since the most recent Journal of Pediatric Psychology Special Issue on Evidence-Based Assessment in Pediatric Psychology (2008). RESULTS: Thirty-two articles were identified and reviewed. The majority of studies reported that PROA was feasible, did not disrupt clinic flow, identified psychosocial issues warranting intervention, and was acceptable to families and providers. Response to elevated scores and impact on behavioral health referrals varied. CONCLUSION: While many evidenced-based assessment measures are well-validated within pediatric chronic illness groups, the literature regarding implementation of PROs is still emerging. Research findings are promising, with PROs being feasible, acceptable, and leading to increased discussion of psychosocial issues when integrated into pediatric medical settings. Additional research is needed to evaluate the longitudinal impact of PROs and the optimal manner of responding to assessment data, particularly when clinically-elevated. Ultimately, identifying psychosocial issues in pediatric medical settings can promote optimal health and well-being of youth with chronic illness and their families.
OBJECTIVE: Youth with chronic illness are at higher risk for psychosocial difficulties, leading to a call for screening via patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The purpose of the current review is to summarize PRO implementation in pediatric medical specialty settings. A literature review of PRO implementation in these settings, conceptual issues, value and approach, legal and ethical concerns, as well as a case example of PROA in type 1 diabetes are presented. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify relevant articles published since the most recent Journal of Pediatric Psychology Special Issue on Evidence-Based Assessment in Pediatric Psychology (2008). RESULTS: Thirty-two articles were identified and reviewed. The majority of studies reported that PROA was feasible, did not disrupt clinic flow, identified psychosocial issues warranting intervention, and was acceptable to families and providers. Response to elevated scores and impact on behavioral health referrals varied. CONCLUSION: While many evidenced-based assessment measures are well-validated within pediatric chronic illness groups, the literature regarding implementation of PROs is still emerging. Research findings are promising, with PROs being feasible, acceptable, and leading to increased discussion of psychosocial issues when integrated into pediatric medical settings. Additional research is needed to evaluate the longitudinal impact of PROs and the optimal manner of responding to assessment data, particularly when clinically-elevated. Ultimately, identifying psychosocial issues in pediatric medical settings can promote optimal health and well-being of youth with chronic illness and their families.
Authors: Sarah R McCarthy; Elizabeth H Golembiewski; Derek L Gravholt; Jennifer E Clark; Jeannie Clark; Caree Fischer; Hannah Mulholland; Kristina Babcock; Victor M Montori; Amie Jones Journal: Children (Basel) Date: 2022-05-05
Authors: Persis V Commissariat; Lisa K Volkening; Deborah A Butler; Eyal Dassau; Stuart A Weinzimer; Lori M Laffel Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 4.213
Authors: Debbie Long; Kristen Gibbons; Belinda Dow; James Best; Kerri-Lyn Webb; Helen G Liley; Christian Stocker; Debra Thoms; Luregn J Schlapbach; Carolyn Wharton; Paula Lister; Lori Matuschka; Maria Isabel Castillo; Zephanie Tyack; Samudragupta Bora Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-15 Impact factor: 3.006