Elizabeth D Cox1, Sarah K Dobrozsi2, Christopher B Forrest3, Wendy E Gerhardt4, Harald Kliems1, Bryce B Reeve5, Nan E Rothrock6, Jin-Shei Lai7, Jacob M Svenson1, Lindsay A Thompson8, Thuy Dan N Tran1, Carole A Tucker9. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA. 4. James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH. 5. Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. 6. Departments of Medical Social Sciences, Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, and Neurology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. 7. Medical Social Sciences and Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. 8. Departments of Pediatrics and Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL. 9. Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Temple University College of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify challenges to the use of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pediatric measures in the ambulatory pediatric setting and possible solutions to these challenges. STUDY DESIGN: Eighteen semistructured telephone interviews of health system leaders, measurement implementers, and ambulatory pediatric clinicians were conducted. Five coders used applied thematic analysis to iteratively identify and refine themes in interview data. RESULTS: Most interviewees had roles in leadership or the implementation of patient-centered outcomes; 39% were clinicians. Some had experience using PROMIS clinically (44%) and 6% were considering this use. Analyses yielded 6 themes: (1) selection of PROMIS measures, (2) method of administration, (3) use of PROMIS Parent Proxy measures, (4) privacy and confidentiality of PROMIS responses, (5) interpretation of PROMIS scores, and (6) using PROMIS scores clinically. Within the themes, interviewees illuminated specific unique considerations for using PROMIS with children, including care transitions and privacy. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world challenges continue to hamper PROMIS use. Ongoing efforts to disseminate information about the integration of PROMIS measures in clinical care is critical to impacting the health of children.
OBJECTIVE: To identify challenges to the use of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pediatric measures in the ambulatory pediatric setting and possible solutions to these challenges. STUDY DESIGN: Eighteen semistructured telephone interviews of health system leaders, measurement implementers, and ambulatory pediatric clinicians were conducted. Five coders used applied thematic analysis to iteratively identify and refine themes in interview data. RESULTS: Most interviewees had roles in leadership or the implementation of patient-centered outcomes; 39% were clinicians. Some had experience using PROMIS clinically (44%) and 6% were considering this use. Analyses yielded 6 themes: (1) selection of PROMIS measures, (2) method of administration, (3) use of PROMIS Parent Proxy measures, (4) privacy and confidentiality of PROMIS responses, (5) interpretation of PROMIS scores, and (6) using PROMIS scores clinically. Within the themes, interviewees illuminated specific unique considerations for using PROMIS with children, including care transitions and privacy. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world challenges continue to hamper PROMIS use. Ongoing efforts to disseminate information about the integration of PROMIS measures in clinical care is critical to impacting the health of children.
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: Roxanne E Jensen; Nan E Rothrock; Esi M DeWitt; Brennan Spiegel; Carole A Tucker; Heidi M Crane; Christopher B Forrest; Donald L Patrick; Rob Fredericksen; Lisa M Shulman; David Cella; Paul K Crane Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Lynne I Wagner; Julian Schink; Michael Bass; Shalini Patel; Maria Varela Diaz; Nan Rothrock; Timothy Pearman; Richard Gershon; Frank J Penedo; Steven Rosen; David Cella Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Wendy E Gerhardt; Constance A Mara; Ian Kudel; Esi M Morgan; Pamela J Schoettker; Jason Napora; Maria T Britto; Evaline A Alessandrini Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2018-06-20
Authors: Ian Porter; Daniela Gonçalves-Bradley; Ignacio Ricci-Cabello; Chris Gibbons; Jaheeda Gangannagaripalli; Ray Fitzpatrick; Nick Black; Joanne Greenhalgh; Jose M Valderas Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 1.744
Authors: Robert S Rudin; Sofia Perez; Jorge A Rodriguez; Jessica Sousa; Savanna Plombon; Adriana Arcia; Dinah Foer; David W Bates; Anuj K Dalal Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-10-12 Impact factor: 7.942