摘要 :
This article in the "Exploring the Evidence" series provides nephrology nurses and clinicians with a description of what electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) entail, as well as...
展开
This article in the "Exploring the Evidence" series provides nephrology nurses and clinicians with a description of what electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) entail, as well as an understanding of how they can be used in nephrology patient care. Specifically highlighted are some questions and issues that clinicians have raised in our various research studies that have explored ePRO use and integration in the movement toward person-centered kidney care (Schick-Makaroff, 2017; Schick-Makaroff & Molzahn, 2014, 2015, 2017; Schick-Makaroff, Tate et al., 2019).
收起
摘要 :
As part of the continuous effort to improve the quality of surgical care across its many facets, our patients can provide invaluable insight into how interventions impact their health and well-being. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO...
展开
As part of the continuous effort to improve the quality of surgical care across its many facets, our patients can provide invaluable insight into how interventions impact their health and well-being. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) complement traditional objective surgical outcomes-such as surgical site infection or length of stay-by accounting for the patient's perspective. The value of PROs was previously reviewed in Seminars in Colon and Rectal Surgery in 2018;1 herein we report on the current status of PROs in colon and rectal surgery. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc.
收起
摘要 :
Objectives Using patient-reported outcomes to inform clinical decision-making depends on knowing how to interpret scores. Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System((R)) (PROMIS (R)) instruments are increasingly used ...
展开
Objectives Using patient-reported outcomes to inform clinical decision-making depends on knowing how to interpret scores. Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System((R)) (PROMIS (R)) instruments are increasingly used in rheumatology research and care, but there is little information available to guide interpretation of scores. We sought to identify thresholds and meaningful change for PROMIS Pain Interference and Fatigue scores from the perspective of RA patients and clinicians.
收起
摘要 :
Introduction Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are frequently utilized within orthopaedics to determine the extent of patient disease and the efficacy of surgical treatments. Shoulder arthroplasty is a common treatment option for a...
展开
Introduction Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are frequently utilized within orthopaedics to determine the extent of patient disease and the efficacy of surgical treatments. Shoulder arthroplasty is a common treatment option for a range of pathologies; however, substantial variety exists regarding the instruments used within the published literature, limiting their quality and generalizability. The purpose of the present systematic review is to evaluate the overall number and frequency of outcome measures used in all clinical studies evaluating outcomes following shoulder arthroplasty. Methods This systematic review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies that assessed patient reported outcomes following total shoulder arthroplasty, reverse shoulder arthroplasty, and shoulder hemiarthroplasty were obtained from PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases. For each manuscript, the journal, authors, region of origin, level of evidence, and subject/pathology were recorded. The frequency of each reported outcome measure and category. Associations between study characteristics and measure categories were tested using Poisson regression with robust error variance. Results A total of 682 articles were included in the analysis, reporting 42 different PROs. The most popular tools were the Constant-Murley score (49.7%), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Evaluation Form (37.7%), and the Visual Analog Scale (34.3%). A generic outcome tool was used in 287 studies (42.1%), while 645 (94.6%) utilized a shoulder-specific measure and 49 (7.2%) used a disease-specific measure. The use of generic (p<0.001) and disease specific (p<0.001) measures were associated with higher level of evidence. Conclusion Studies assessing patient outcomes following shoulder arthroplasty employ a large range of PRO measuring tools, many of which are non-validated. Furthermore, only a small percentage of studies utilize a combination of tools from different categories despite current recommendations. Consensus on validated and clinically-meaningful tools from multiple categories is necessary to increase the generalizability and applicability of published studies in shoulder arthroplasty literature. Level of Evidence 1.
收起
摘要 :
Purpose In current cancer care, there is a growing debate about the value of using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in daily clinical follow-up. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to assess the evidence o...
展开
Purpose In current cancer care, there is a growing debate about the value of using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in daily clinical follow-up. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to assess the evidence of the effectiveness of the routine use of PROMs in daily cancer care in terms of patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators and to identify the effect of giving feedback about PROM findings to patients and/or health care professionals (HCPs). Methods A systematic search was performed. Studies were eligible for inclusion when they (1) used a PROM as an intervention, with or without feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with not using a PROM, and (2) used a PROM as an intervention with feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with using a PROM without giving feedback to patients and/or HCPs. Results After screening of 8341 references, 22 original studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies found a positive effect on survival, symptoms, HRQoL and patient satisfaction. In general, using feedback to patient and/or HCPs about the PROM results led to better symptom control, HRQoL, patient satisfaction and patient-doctor communication. The majority of included studies had insufficient power to detect significant differences in the outcomes assessed. Conclusion This review shows that predominantly positive findings were found in the use of a PROM in daily cancer care. Additionally, more positive effects were seen when feedback is provided to patient and/or health care professionals, and it is thus highly recommended that this is always done.
收起
摘要 :
? 2021 Society for Vascular SurgeryA previously published review focused on generic and disease-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) relevant to vascular surgery but limited to arterial conditions. The objective of t...
展开
? 2021 Society for Vascular SurgeryA previously published review focused on generic and disease-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) relevant to vascular surgery but limited to arterial conditions. The objective of this project was to identify all available PROMs relevant to diseases treated by vascular surgeons and to evaluate vascular surgeon perceptions, barriers to widespread implementation, and concerns regarding PROMs. We provide an overview of what a PROM is and how they are developed, and summarize currently available PROMs specific to vascular surgeons. We also report results from a survey of 78 Society for Vascular Surgery members serving on committees within the Policy and Advocacy Council addressing the barriers and facilitators to using PROMs in clinical practice. Finally, we report the qualitative results of two focus groups conducted to assess granular perceptions of PROMS and preparedness of vascular surgeons for widespread implementation of PROMs. These focus groups identified a lack of awareness of existing PROMs, knowledge of how PROMs are developed and validated, and clarity around how PROMs should be used by the clinician as main subthemes for barriers to PROM implementation in clinical practice.
收起
摘要 :
Given the increased life expectancy and improvements in the treatment of colorectal patients, the success of a treatment course can no longer be determined only by objective outcomes. Health care providers ought to take into consi...
展开
Given the increased life expectancy and improvements in the treatment of colorectal patients, the success of a treatment course can no longer be determined only by objective outcomes. Health care providers ought to take into consideration the impact an intervention will have on the quality of life of patients. Endpoints that take into account the patient's perspective are defined as patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PROs are assessed through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), usually in the form of questionnaires. PROs are especially important in colorectal surgery, whose procedures can often be associated with some degree of postoperative functional impairment. Several PROMs are available for colorectal surgery patients. However, while some scientific societies have offered recommendations, there is no standardization in the field and PROMs are seldom implemented in clinical practice. The routine use of validated PROMs can guarantee that functional outcomes are followed over time; this way, they can be addressed in case of worsening. This review will provide an overview of the most commonly used PROMs in colorectal surgery, both generic and disease specific, as well as a summary of the available evidence in support of their routine utilization.
收起
摘要 :
Discrepancies in symptom assessment between providers and patients are reported in cancer care, and the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has been recommended for patients receiving palliative care. However, the sta...
展开
Discrepancies in symptom assessment between providers and patients are reported in cancer care, and the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has been recommended for patients receiving palliative care. However, the status of the routine use of PROMs in palliative care in Japan is presently unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify this complex question. To this end, we administered a questionnaire survey either online or via telephone interviews (questionnaire: sent to 427 designated cancer hospitals, 423 palliative care units [PCUs], and 197 home hospices; interviews: conducted at 13 designated cancer hospitals, nine PCUs, and two home hospices).Questionnaires were returned from 458 institutions (44% response rate). We found that 35 palliative care teams (PCTs, 15%), 66 outpatient palliative care services (29%), 24 PCUs (11%) and one (5%) home hospice routinely used PROMs. The most frequently implemented instrument was the Comprehensive Care Needs Survey questionnaire. Moreover, 99 institutions (92%) that routinely used PROMs responded these instruments as useful in relieving patients’ symptoms; and moreover, the response rate in regard to usefulness in symptom management was higher than that of institutions that did not routinely use PROMs (p = 0.002); > 50% of the institutions that routinely used PROMs stated that use of these instruments was influenced by disease progression and patients’ cognitive function. Moreover, 24 institutions agreed to be interviewed, and interviews demonstrated the benefits of and the barriers to the implementation of PROMs. Effective methods used in the implementation of PROMs were introduced as efforts to reduce the burden placed on patients and to promote healthcare providers’ education in the use of PROMs.This survey quantified the status of the routine use of PROMs within specialized palliative care in Japan, revealed barriers to wider PROM use, and identified needed innovations. Only 108 institutions (24%) routinely used PROMs within specialized palliative care. Based on the results of the study, it is necessary to carefully consider the usefulness of PROs in clinical palliative care, perform careful selection of PROMs according to the patient's condition, and evaluate how specifically to introduce and operate PROMs.
收起
摘要 :
Owing to the increasing complexity of cancer treatment, ensuring safety and maintaining the quality of life during treatment are important issues. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology is essential for assessing patient sym...
展开
Owing to the increasing complexity of cancer treatment, ensuring safety and maintaining the quality of life during treatment are important issues. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology is essential for assessing patient symptoms. A feasibility study was conducted on breast cancer patients by building a PRO data collection system based on LINE, one of the most popular social network service application in Japan. In this study, one or more pre-defined PRO questions for each breast cancer patient's clinical situation were sent to the patient's LINE application daily. The patient selected a pre-defined answer by tapping the screen, but no free-text answers were allowed. Seventy-three patients were enrolled. The median observation period was 435 days (84-656 days), and the total number of PROs collected was 16,417, with a mean of 224.9 reports per patient. Patients on adjuvant endocrine therapy were notified of 2.5 questions per week, and the median number of responses per day and response rate were 2.387 (1.687-11.627) and 95.5% respectively. Analyzing the results by age group, the number of responses from those aged 60 and above was equal to or higher than that of the younger age group. It was also possible to track each patient's PROs accurately. These results suggested that the design of the system, based on an application used daily, instead of using specifically prepared applications for collecting ePROs, was the reason for the favorable acceptance from patients and the satisfactory response rate from all age groups, including the elderly.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
收起
摘要 :
Abstract Patient‐reported outcomes (PRO) are collected directly from the patient and have become increasingly utilized in the clinical setting and in clinical research. In musculoskeletal oncology patients, a number of patient‐r...
展开
Abstract Patient‐reported outcomes (PRO) are collected directly from the patient and have become increasingly utilized in the clinical setting and in clinical research. In musculoskeletal oncology patients, a number of patient‐reported outcomes measures (PROM) have been developed and investigated to evaluate functional outcomes and health‐related quality of life in these patients. With the growing evidence for PROM in musculoskeletal oncology patients, PROM should be considered for the clinical care of these patients.
收起
原文获取