Cargando…
Are we missing the Institute of Medicine’s mark? A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures assessing quality of patient-centred cancer care
BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has endorsed six dimensions of patient-centredness as crucial to providing quality healthcare. These dimensions outline that care must be: 1) respectful to patients’ values, preferences, and expressed needs; 2) coordinated and integrated; 3) provide inform...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917413/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24460829 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-14-41 |
_version_ | 1782302837470920704 |
---|---|
author | Tzelepis, Flora Rose, Shiho K Sanson-Fisher, Robert W Clinton-McHarg, Tara Carey, Mariko L Paul, Christine L |
author_facet | Tzelepis, Flora Rose, Shiho K Sanson-Fisher, Robert W Clinton-McHarg, Tara Carey, Mariko L Paul, Christine L |
author_sort | Tzelepis, Flora |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has endorsed six dimensions of patient-centredness as crucial to providing quality healthcare. These dimensions outline that care must be: 1) respectful to patients’ values, preferences, and expressed needs; 2) coordinated and integrated; 3) provide information, communication, and education; 4) ensure physical comfort; 5) provide emotional support—relieving fear and anxiety; and 6) involve family and friends. However, whether patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) comprehensively cover these dimensions remains unexplored. This systematic review examined whether PROMs designed to assess the quality of patient-centred cancer care addressed all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care and the psychometric properties of these measures. METHODS: Medline, PsycINFO, Current Contents, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus were searched to retrieve published studies describing the development and psychometric properties of PROMs assessing the quality of patient-centred cancer care. Two authors determined if eligible PROMs included the six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care and evaluated the adequacy of psychometric properties based on recommended criteria for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, face/content validity, construct validity and cross-cultural adaptation. RESULTS: Across all 21 PROMs, the most commonly included IOM dimension of patient-centred care was “information, communication and education” (19 measures). In contrast, only five measures assessed the “involvement of family and friends.” Two measures included one IOM-endorsed patient-centred care dimension, two measures had two dimensions, seven measures had three dimensions, five measures had four dimensions, and four measures had five dimensions. One measure, the Indicators (Non-small Cell Lung Cancer), covered all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care, but had adequate face/content validity only. Eighteen measures met the recommended adequacy criteria for construct validity, 15 for face/content validity, seven for internal consistency, three for cross-cultural adaptation and no measure for test-retest reliability. CONCLUSIONS: There are no psychometrically rigorous PROMs developed with cancer patients that capture all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care. Using more than one measure or expanding existing measures to cover all six patient-centred care dimensions could improve assessment and delivery of patient-centred care. Construction of new comprehensive measures with acceptable psychometric properties that can be used with the general cancer population may also be warranted. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3917413 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-39174132014-02-08 Are we missing the Institute of Medicine’s mark? A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures assessing quality of patient-centred cancer care Tzelepis, Flora Rose, Shiho K Sanson-Fisher, Robert W Clinton-McHarg, Tara Carey, Mariko L Paul, Christine L BMC Cancer Research Article BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has endorsed six dimensions of patient-centredness as crucial to providing quality healthcare. These dimensions outline that care must be: 1) respectful to patients’ values, preferences, and expressed needs; 2) coordinated and integrated; 3) provide information, communication, and education; 4) ensure physical comfort; 5) provide emotional support—relieving fear and anxiety; and 6) involve family and friends. However, whether patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) comprehensively cover these dimensions remains unexplored. This systematic review examined whether PROMs designed to assess the quality of patient-centred cancer care addressed all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care and the psychometric properties of these measures. METHODS: Medline, PsycINFO, Current Contents, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus were searched to retrieve published studies describing the development and psychometric properties of PROMs assessing the quality of patient-centred cancer care. Two authors determined if eligible PROMs included the six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care and evaluated the adequacy of psychometric properties based on recommended criteria for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, face/content validity, construct validity and cross-cultural adaptation. RESULTS: Across all 21 PROMs, the most commonly included IOM dimension of patient-centred care was “information, communication and education” (19 measures). In contrast, only five measures assessed the “involvement of family and friends.” Two measures included one IOM-endorsed patient-centred care dimension, two measures had two dimensions, seven measures had three dimensions, five measures had four dimensions, and four measures had five dimensions. One measure, the Indicators (Non-small Cell Lung Cancer), covered all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care, but had adequate face/content validity only. Eighteen measures met the recommended adequacy criteria for construct validity, 15 for face/content validity, seven for internal consistency, three for cross-cultural adaptation and no measure for test-retest reliability. CONCLUSIONS: There are no psychometrically rigorous PROMs developed with cancer patients that capture all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care. Using more than one measure or expanding existing measures to cover all six patient-centred care dimensions could improve assessment and delivery of patient-centred care. Construction of new comprehensive measures with acceptable psychometric properties that can be used with the general cancer population may also be warranted. BioMed Central 2014-01-25 /pmc/articles/PMC3917413/ /pubmed/24460829 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-14-41 Text en Copyright © 2014 Tzelepis et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Tzelepis, Flora Rose, Shiho K Sanson-Fisher, Robert W Clinton-McHarg, Tara Carey, Mariko L Paul, Christine L Are we missing the Institute of Medicine’s mark? A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures assessing quality of patient-centred cancer care |
title | Are we missing the Institute of Medicine’s mark? A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures assessing quality of patient-centred cancer care |
title_full | Are we missing the Institute of Medicine’s mark? A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures assessing quality of patient-centred cancer care |
title_fullStr | Are we missing the Institute of Medicine’s mark? A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures assessing quality of patient-centred cancer care |
title_full_unstemmed | Are we missing the Institute of Medicine’s mark? A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures assessing quality of patient-centred cancer care |
title_short | Are we missing the Institute of Medicine’s mark? A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures assessing quality of patient-centred cancer care |
title_sort | are we missing the institute of medicine’s mark? a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures assessing quality of patient-centred cancer care |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917413/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24460829 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-14-41 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tzelepisflora arewemissingtheinstituteofmedicinesmarkasystematicreviewofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresassessingqualityofpatientcentredcancercare AT roseshihok arewemissingtheinstituteofmedicinesmarkasystematicreviewofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresassessingqualityofpatientcentredcancercare AT sansonfisherrobertw arewemissingtheinstituteofmedicinesmarkasystematicreviewofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresassessingqualityofpatientcentredcancercare AT clintonmchargtara arewemissingtheinstituteofmedicinesmarkasystematicreviewofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresassessingqualityofpatientcentredcancercare AT careymarikol arewemissingtheinstituteofmedicinesmarkasystematicreviewofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresassessingqualityofpatientcentredcancercare AT paulchristinel arewemissingtheinstituteofmedicinesmarkasystematicreviewofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresassessingqualityofpatientcentredcancercare |