BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires that collect health outcomes directly from the people who experience them. This review critically synthesizes information on generic and selected condition-specific PROMs to describe trends and contemporary issues regarding their development, validation and application. METHODS: We reviewed academic and grey literature on validated PROMs by searching databases, prominent websites, Google Scholar and Google Search. The identification of condition-specific PROMs was limited to common conditions and those with a high burden of disease (eg cancers, cardiovascular disorders). Trends and contemporary issues in the development, validation and application of PROMs were critically evaluated. RESULTS: The search yielded 315 generic and condition-specific PROMs. The largest numbers of measures were identified for generic PROMs, musculoskeletal conditions and cancers. The earliest published PROMs were in mental health-related conditions. The number of PROMs grew substantially between 1980s and 2000s but slowed more recently. The number of publications discussing PROMs continues to increase. Issues identified include the use of computer-adaptive testing and increasing concerns about the appropriateness of using PROMs developed and validated for specific purposes (eg research) for other reasons (eg clinical decision making). CONCLUSIONS: The term PROM is a relatively new designation for a range of measures that have existed since at least the 1960s. Although literature on PROMs continues to expand, challenges remain in selecting reliable and valid tools that are fit-for-purpose from the many existing instruments. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Consumers were not directly involved in this review; however, its outcome will be used in programmes that engage and partner with consumers.
BACKGROUND:Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires that collect health outcomes directly from the people who experience them. This review critically synthesizes information on generic and selected condition-specific PROMs to describe trends and contemporary issues regarding their development, validation and application. METHODS: We reviewed academic and grey literature on validated PROMs by searching databases, prominent websites, Google Scholar and Google Search. The identification of condition-specific PROMs was limited to common conditions and those with a high burden of disease (eg cancers, cardiovascular disorders). Trends and contemporary issues in the development, validation and application of PROMs were critically evaluated. RESULTS: The search yielded 315 generic and condition-specific PROMs. The largest numbers of measures were identified for generic PROMs, musculoskeletal conditions and cancers. The earliest published PROMs were in mental health-related conditions. The number of PROMs grew substantially between 1980s and 2000s but slowed more recently. The number of publications discussing PROMs continues to increase. Issues identified include the use of computer-adaptive testing and increasing concerns about the appropriateness of using PROMs developed and validated for specific purposes (eg research) for other reasons (eg clinical decision making). CONCLUSIONS: The term PROM is a relatively new designation for a range of measures that have existed since at least the 1960s. Although literature on PROMs continues to expand, challenges remain in selecting reliable and valid tools that are fit-for-purpose from the many existing instruments. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Consumers were not directly involved in this review; however, its outcome will be used in programmes that engage and partner with consumers.
Authors: Michael Quan Nguyen; Ingvild Dalen; Marjolein Memelink Iversen; Knut Harboe; Aksel Paulsen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-06-18 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Richard G McGee; Edward Y B Zhang; Jennifer J G Tan; Aiden C K Cheung; Matthew P Garvey Journal: BMC Endocr Disord Date: 2022-07-15 Impact factor: 3.263
Authors: Jens Bollerslev; Lars Rejnmark; Alexandra Zahn; Ansgar Heck; N M Appelman-Dijkstra; Luis Cardoso; Fadil M Hannan; Filomena Cetani; Tanja Sikjær; Anna Maria Formenti; Sigridur Björnsdottir; Camilla Schalin-Jantti; Zhanna Belaya; Fraser Wilson Gibb; Bruno Lapauw; Karin Amrein; Corinna Wicke; Corinna Grasemann; Michael Krebs; Eeva M Ryhänen; Ozer Makay; Salvatore Minisola; Sebastien Gaujoux; Jean-Philippe Bertocchio; Zaki K Hassan-Smith; Agnès Linglart; Elizabeth M Winter; Martina Kollmann; Hans-Georg Zmierczak; Elena Tsourdi; Stefan Pilz; Heide Siggelkow; Neil J Gittoes; Claudio Marcocci; Peter Kamenicky Journal: Eur J Endocrinol Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 6.664
Authors: Carolin Sophie Brune; Gregor Toporowski; Jan Duedal Rölfing; Georg Gosheger; Jana Fresen; Adrien Frommer; Andrea Laufer; Robert Roedl; Bjoern Vogt Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2022-07-13
Authors: Maria Manuel Teixeira; Fábio Cardoso Borges; Paula Sousa Ferreira; João Rocha; Bruno Sepodes; Carla Torre Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-08-12
Authors: Alexander Fabian; Justus Domschikowski; Anne Letsch; Claudia Schmalz; Sandra Freitag-Wolf; Juergen Dunst; David Krug Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-09-01