Literature DB >> 8028414

Methodological issues in measuring patient-reported outcomes: the agenda of the Work Group on Outcomes Assessment.

F J Fowler1, P D Cleary, J Magaziner, D L Patrick, K L Benjamin.   

Abstract

The primary goal of the Inter-PORT work group on Outcomes Assessment is to foster methodological knowledge about the implications of various measure and design decisions for studies of the outcomes of treatment. A number of key methodological issues currently are unresolved and are in need of further study. These include: 1) the best questions to ask to assess how patients are affected by their treatments; 2) the comparative advantages of various study designs, including prospective cohorts, retrospective studies, and randomized clinical trials; 3) the way data collection decisions, such as mode of data collection and use of proxy respondents, affect study results; and 4) the best way to assess the significance of observed effects from patient, provider, and public policy perspectives. Studies conducted by the Patients Outcomes Research Teams (PORTs) are using diverse designs, measures, and data collection procedures. They provide a unique opportunity to further knowledge about methods of obtaining information about treatment outcomes. Through meetings, conferences, and publications, the Inter-PORT work group on Outcomes Assessment is trying to stimulate analyses aimed at methodological issues summarized in this paper and to ensure that new knowledge about methods is disseminated to a wide audience.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8028414

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  9 in total

Review 1.  Pharmacoeconomic evaluation in the real world. Effectiveness versus efficacy studies.

Authors:  D A Revicki; L Frank
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Assessing the reliability of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in a sample of older African American and Caucasian adults.

Authors:  M E Ford; S L Havstad; C S Kart
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 3.  Assessing quality of life in patients with epilepsy.

Authors:  A Jacoby
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Decision support for patient preference-based care planning: effects on nursing care and patient outcomes.

Authors:  C M Ruland
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  1999 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.497

5.  Handheld technology to improve patient care: evaluating a support system for preference-based care planning at the bedside.

Authors:  Cornelia M Ruland
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2002 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.497

6.  Patient-centered outcomes in surgical and orthodontic treatment.

Authors:  C Phillips
Journal:  Semin Orthod       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 0.970

7.  Improving patient outcomes by including patient preferences in nursing care.

Authors:  C M Ruland
Journal:  Proc AMIA Symp       Date:  1998

8.  Health-related quality of life following blind rehabilitation.

Authors:  Thomas Kuyk; Lei Liu; Jeffry L Elliott; Hartley E Grubbs; Cynthia Owsley; Gerald McGwin; Russell L Griffin; Patti S Fuhr
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Online consumer surveys as a methodology for assessing the quality of the United States health care system.

Authors:  Christina Bethell; John Fiorillo; David Lansky; Michael Hendryx; James Knickman
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2004-01-20       Impact factor: 5.428

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.