Literature DB >> 32061828

Promoting effective use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: themes from a "Methods Tool kit" paper series.

Michael D Brundage1, Albert W Wu2, Yonaira M Rivera3, Claire Snyder4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: "PRO-cision Medicine," using patients' reports of their symptoms, functioning, and well-being to personalize their care, is becoming more prevalent. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are assessed using standardized, validated measures. Research shows that clinicians' and patients' understanding of what the PRO scores mean and how to act on them is often suboptimal. Methods to improve interpretation of PRO scores and action based on PRO results can promote more effective use of PROs in practice. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: A recent supplement to Medical Care describes various approaches to address challenges in interpreting and acting on PROs in practice and therefore serves as a "PRO-cision Medicine Methods Tool kit." This commentary provides an overview of the supplement and identifies cross-cutting themes guided by a theoretical framework.
RESULTS: Six papers describe methods for interpreting PROs, and eight papers describe how different PRO systems address interpreting PRO scores and/or acting on PRO results. Based on the theoretical framework, cross-cutting themes are described in terms of (1) providing PRO information, (2) using PRO data, (3) screening for problems and monitoring for changes, and (4) changing management and behavior.
CONCLUSIONS: The PRO-cision Medicine Methods Tool kit provides a useful resource for interpreting and acting on PRO scores to personalize patient care.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer; Clinical encounter; Guidance; Interpretation; Patient-reported outcomes; Symptom monitoring

Year:  2020        PMID: 32061828     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  6 in total

1.  A New Procedure to Assess When Estimates from the Cumulative Link Model Can Be Interpreted as Differences for Ordinal Scales in Quality of Life Studies.

Authors:  Yilin Ning; Peh Joo Ho; Nathalie C Støer; Ka Keat Lim; Hwee-Lin Wee; Mikael Hartman; Marie Reilly; Chuen Seng Tan
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 4.790

Review 2.  Outcomes after kidney transplantation, let's focus on the patients' perspectives.

Authors:  Yiman Wang; Jaapjan D Snoep; Marc H Hemmelder; Koen E A van der Bogt; Willem Jan W Bos; Paul J M van der Boog; Friedo W Dekker; Aiko P J de Vries; Yvette Meuleman
Journal:  Clin Kidney J       Date:  2021-01-20

3.  Development of a Patient Reported Measure of Experimental Transplants with HIV and Ethics in the United States (PROMETHEUS).

Authors:  Shanti Seaman; Diane Brown; Ann Eno; Sile Yu; Allan B Massie; Aaron A R Tobian; Christine M Durand; Dorry L Segev; Albert W Wu; Jeremy Sugarman
Journal:  J Patient Rep Outcomes       Date:  2021-03-18

4.  Examining the Utility of the HIV Disability Questionnaire (HDQ) in Clinical Practice: Perspectives of People Living with HIV and Healthcare Providers.

Authors:  Kyle Vader; Soo Chan Carusone; Rachel Aubry; Puja Ahluwalia; Carolann Murray; Larry Baxter; Gregory Robinson; Francisco Ibáñez-Carrasco; Ann Stewart; Patricia Solomon; Kelly K O'Brien
Journal:  J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec

5.  Quality of life assessments in clinical practice using either the EORTC-QLQ-C30 or the SEIOQL-DW: a randomized study.

Authors:  Åsa Kettis; Hanna Fagerlind; Jan-Erik Frödin; Bengt Glimelius; Lena Ring
Journal:  J Patient Rep Outcomes       Date:  2021-07-14

6.  Nondietary Cardiovascular Health Metrics With Patient Experience and Loss of Productivity Among US Adults Without Cardiovascular Disease: The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 2006 to 2015.

Authors:  Martin Tibuakuu; Victor Okunrintemi; Nazir Savji; Neil J Stone; Salim S Virani; Ron Blankstein; Ritu Thamman; Roger S Blumenthal; Erin D Michos
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 6.106

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.