Literature DB >> 34261163

Clinical Use of PROMIS, Neuro-QoL, TBI-QoL, and Other Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Individual Adult Clients with Cognitive and Language Disorders.

Matthew L Cohen1,2, Alyssa M Lanzi1, Aaron J Boulton2.   

Abstract

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assess health outcomes from the patient's perspective. The National Institutes of Health has invested in the creation of numerous PROMs that comprise the PROMIS, Neuro-QoL, and TBI-QoL measurement systems. Some of these PROMs are potentially useful as primary or secondary outcome measures, or as contextual variables for the treatment of adults with cognitive/language disorders. These PROMs were primarily created for clinical research and interpretation of group means. They also have potential for use with individual clients; however, at present there is only sparse evidence and direction for this application of PROMs. Previous research by Cohen and Hula (2020) described how PROMs could support evidence-based practices in speech-language pathology. This companion article extends upon that work to present clinicians with implementation information about obtaining, administering, scoring, and interpreting PROMs for individual clients with cognitive/language disorders. This includes considerations of the type and extent of communication support that is appropriate, implications of the relatively large measurement error that accompanies individual scores and pairs of scores, and recommendations for applying minimal detectable change values depending on the clinician's desired level of measurement precision. However, more research is needed to guide the interpretation of PROM scores for an individual client. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34261163      PMCID: PMC9297691          DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1731365

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Speech Lang        ISSN: 0734-0478            Impact factor:   1.734


  69 in total

Review 1.  Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Dennis Revicki; Ron D Hays; David Cella; Jeff Sloan
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  The Aphasia Communication Outcome Measure (ACOM): Dimensionality, Item Bank Calibration, and Initial Validation.

Authors:  William D Hula; Patrick J Doyle; Clement A Stone; Shannon N Austermann Hula; Stacey Kellough; Julie L Wambaugh; Katherine B Ross; James G Schumacher; Ann St Jacque
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  Idio Scale Judgment: evaluation of a new method for estimating responder thresholds.

Authors:  Karon F Cook; Michael A Kallen; Cheryl D Coon; David Victorson; Deborah M Miller
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-06-17       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Do people with aphasia want written stroke and aphasia information? A verbal survey exploring preferences for when and how to provide stroke and aphasia information.

Authors:  Tanya Rose; Linda Worrall; Louise Hickson; Tammy Hoffmann
Journal:  Top Stroke Rehabil       Date:  2010 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.119

5.  Bringing PROMIS to practice: brief and precise symptom screening in ambulatory cancer care.

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

6.  Neuro-QOL: quality of life item banks for adults with neurological disorders: item development and calibrations based upon clinical and general population testing.

Authors:  Richard C Gershon; Jin Shei Lai; Rita Bode; Seung Choi; Claudia Moy; Tom Bleck; Deborah Miller; Amy Peterman; David Cella
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2011-08-27       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Development and Psychometric Characteristics of the TBI-QOL Communication Item Bank.

Authors:  Matthew L Cohen; Pamela A Kisala; Aaron J Boulton; Noelle E Carlozzi; Christine V Cook; David S Tulsky
Journal:  J Head Trauma Rehabil       Date:  2019 Sep/Oct       Impact factor: 2.710

8.  Training clinicians in how to use patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice.

Authors:  Maria J Santana; Lotte Haverman; Kate Absolom; Elena Takeuchi; David Feeny; Martha Grootenhuis; Galina Velikova
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-01-15       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  TBI-QOL: Development and Calibration of Item Banks to Measure Patient Reported Outcomes Following Traumatic Brain Injury.

Authors:  David S Tulsky; Pamela A Kisala; David Victorson; Noelle Carlozzi; Tamara Bushnik; Mark Sherer; Seung W Choi; Allen W Heinemann; Nancy Chiaravalloti; Angelle M Sander; Jeffrey Englander; Robin Hanks; Stephanie Kolakowsky-Hayner; Elliot Roth; Richard Gershon; Mitchell Rosenthal; David Cella
Journal:  J Head Trauma Rehabil       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.710

10.  Reconsidering the psychometrics of quality of life assessment in light of response shift and appraisal.

Authors:  Carolyn E Schwartz; Bruce D Rapkin
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2004-03-23       Impact factor: 3.186

View more
  1 in total

1.  Responsiveness of the Traumatic Brain Injury Quality of Life Cognition Banks in Recent Brain Injury.

Authors:  Callie E Tyner; Pamela A Kisala; Aaron J Boulton; Mark Sherer; Nancy D Chiaravalloti; Angelle M Sander; Tamara Bushnik; David S Tulsky
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2022-03-04       Impact factor: 3.169

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.