Yu Ting Chen1, Yan Zhi Tan2,3, Mcvin Cheen4,5, Hwee-Lin Wee6,7. 1. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, 12 Science Drive 2, Singapore, 117549, Singapore. 2. Department of Health Management and Economics, University of Oslo, Kirkeveien 166, Frederik Holsts hus , 0450, Oslo, Norway. 3. Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50 , Rotterdam, PA, 3062, Netherlands. 4. Danone Asia Pacific Holdings, 1 Wallich Street, #18-01 Guoco Tower, Singapore, 078881, Singapore. 5. Medicine Academic Clinical Programme, Duke-NUS Medical School, 8 College Rd, Singapore, 169857, Singapore. 6. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, 12 Science Drive 2, Singapore, 117549, Singapore. ephwhl@nus.edu.sg. 7. Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, 18 Science Drive 4, Singapore, 117543, Singapore. ephwhl@nus.edu.sg.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient registries both play important roles in assessing patient outcomes. However, no study has examined the use of PROMs among registries involving patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Our objective is twofold: first, to review the range of PROMs used in registry-based studies of patients with T2DM; second, to describe associations between these PROMs, T2DM and its complications. RECENT FINDINGS: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Diabetes Standard Set recommended routine usage of PROMs to assess psychological well-being, diabetes distress, and depression among patients with T2DM. A wide variety of PROMs were used among the 15 studies included in this review. Quality of life, depressive symptoms and treatment adherence were the most common aspects of T2DM that utilised PROMs for assessment. Adoption of PROMs among registries of patients with T2DM remains uncommon, non-routine and with few that are validated before use.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient registries both play important roles in assessing patient outcomes. However, no study has examined the use of PROMs among registries involving patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Our objective is twofold: first, to review the range of PROMs used in registry-based studies of patients with T2DM; second, to describe associations between these PROMs, T2DM and its complications. RECENT FINDINGS: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Diabetes Standard Set recommended routine usage of PROMs to assess psychological well-being, diabetes distress, and depression among patients with T2DM. A wide variety of PROMs were used among the 15 studies included in this review. Quality of life, depressive symptoms and treatment adherence were the most common aspects of T2DM that utilised PROMs for assessment. Adoption of PROMs among registries of patients with T2DM remains uncommon, non-routine and with few that are validated before use.
Authors: B E Ainsworth; W L Haskell; M C Whitt; M L Irwin; A M Swartz; S J Strath; W L O'Brien; D R Bassett; K H Schmitz; P O Emplaincourt; D R Jacobs; A S Leon Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Seth A Berkowitz; Andrew J Karter; Courtney R Lyles; Jennifer Y Liu; Dean Schillinger; Nancy E Adler; Howard H Moffet; Urmimala Sarkar Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2014-05
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2009-07-21 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Eugene C Nelson; Mary Dixon-Woods; Paul B Batalden; Karen Homa; Aricca D Van Citters; Tamara S Morgan; Elena Eftimovska; Elliott S Fisher; John Ovretveit; Wade Harrison; Cristin Lind; Staffan Lindblad Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-07-01
Authors: Alberto J Pérez-Panero; María Ruiz-Muñoz; Raúl Fernández-Torres; Cynthia Formosa; Alfred Gatt; Manuel Gónzalez-Sánchez Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-06-09 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Ellen B M Elsman; Lidwine B Mokkink; Marlous Langendoen-Gort; Femke Rutters; Joline Beulens; Petra J M Elders; Caroline B Terwee Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2022-06
Authors: Esther A Boudewijns; Danny Claessens; Onno C P van Schayck; Lotte C E M Keijsers; Philippe L Salomé; Johannes C C M In 't Veen; Henk J G Bilo; Annerika H M Gidding-Slok Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Petra J M Elders; Marlous Langendoen-Gort; Ellen B M Elsman; Cecilia A C Prinsen; Amber A van der Heijden; Maartje de Wit; Joline W J Beulens; Lidwine B Mokkink; Femke Rutters Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 5.430
Authors: Elena-Daniela Grigorescu; Cristina-Mihaela Lăcătușu; Ioana Crețu; Mariana Floria; Alina Onofriescu; Alexandr Ceasovschih; Bogdan-Mircea Mihai; Laurențiu Șorodoc Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-21 Impact factor: 3.390