Literature DB >> 9927249

Reviewing and selecting outcome measures for use in routine practice.

J Greenhalgh1, A F Long, A J Brettle, M J Grant.   

Abstract

For the successful achievement of evidence-based practice, clinicians, managers and purchasers need evidence on whether a particular intervention works and ways to judge the appropriateness of the outcome criteria and measures used. Guidance is needed on what outcome measure to use, especially within routine clinical care settings. Beginning with a reclarification of the difference between a health status and an outcome measure, the paper presents an evaluative checklist for use by clinical audit and research staff to review outcome measures for use in routine care settings. Central features include the user-centredness of the measure, its psychometric properties, feasibility of use and utility. The applicability of the checklist is illustrated for outcome measurement in diabetes and stroke care. A modified form of the checklist is proposed for use by the busy clinician as an aid to the critical review of research papers within the context of evidence-based practice and to aid health care practitioners' choice of which outcome measure(s) to use within routine clinical care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9927249     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.1998.tb00097.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract        ISSN: 1356-1294            Impact factor:   2.431


  21 in total

Review 1.  Towards Usable E-Health. A Systematic Review of Usability Questionnaires.

Authors:  Vanessa E C Sousa; Karen Dunn Lopez
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 2.342

Review 2.  Saving time and effort: Best practice for adapting existing patient-reported outcome measures in hepatology.

Authors:  Laith Alrubaiy; Hayley A Hutchings; Sarah E Hughes; Thomas Dobbs
Journal:  World J Hepatol       Date:  2022-05-27

3.  The MS Symptom and Impact Diary (MSSID): psychometric evaluation of a new instrument to measure the day to day impact of multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  J Greenhalgh; H Ford; A F Long; K Hurst
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 10.154

4.  Physician perspective on incorporation of oncology patient quality-of-life, fatigue, and pain assessment into clinical practice.

Authors:  Joleen M Hubbard; Axel F Grothey; Robert R McWilliams; Jan C Buckner; Jeff A Sloan
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 3.840

Review 5.  A review of the psychometric properties of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) family of measures.

Authors:  Jane E Pirkis; Philip M Burgess; Pia K Kirk; Sarity Dodson; Tim J Coombs; Michelle K Williamson
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2005-11-28       Impact factor: 3.186

6.  Feedback on the FDA's February 2006 draft guidance on Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) measures from a developer of PRO measures.

Authors:  Clare Bradley
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2006-10-09       Impact factor: 3.186

Review 7.  Pain assessment for people with dementia: a systematic review of systematic reviews of pain assessment tools.

Authors:  Valentina Lichtner; Dawn Dowding; Philip Esterhuizen; S José Closs; Andrew F Long; Anne Corbett; Michelle Briggs
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 3.921

8.  Facilitating education in pulmonary rehabilitation using the living well with COPD programme for pulmonary rehabilitation: a process evaluation.

Authors:  Denise Cosgrove; Joseph Macmahon; Jean Bourbeau; Judy M Bradley; Brenda O'Neill
Journal:  BMC Pulm Med       Date:  2013-08-05       Impact factor: 3.317

9.  "It's hard to tell": the challenges of scoring patients on standardised outcome measures by multidisciplinary teams: a case study of neurorehabilitation.

Authors:  J Greenhalgh; A F Long; R Flynn; S Tyson
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2008-10-22       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  Measuring a caring culture in hospitals: a systematic review of instruments.

Authors:  G Hesselink; E Kuis; M Pijnenburg; H Wollersheim
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-09-23       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.