Cargando…

Identification, description and appraisal of generic PROMs for primary care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Patients attend primary care with many types of problems and to achieve a range of possible outcomes. There is currently a lack of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) designed to capture these diverse outcomes. The objective of this systematic review was to identify, describe and a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Murphy, Mairead, Hollinghurst, Sandra, Salisbury, Chris
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5856382/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29544455
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-018-0722-9
_version_ 1783307297608433664
author Murphy, Mairead
Hollinghurst, Sandra
Salisbury, Chris
author_facet Murphy, Mairead
Hollinghurst, Sandra
Salisbury, Chris
author_sort Murphy, Mairead
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Patients attend primary care with many types of problems and to achieve a range of possible outcomes. There is currently a lack of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) designed to capture these diverse outcomes. The objective of this systematic review was to identify, describe and appraise generic PROMs suitable for measuring outcomes from primary care. METHODS: We carried out a systematic Medline search, supplemented by other online and hand-searches. All potentially relevant PROMs were itemised in a long-list. Each PROM in the long-list which met inclusion criteria was included in a short-list. Short-listed PROMs were then described in terms of their measurement properties and construct, based on a previously published description of primary care outcome as three constructs: health status, health empowerment and health perceptions. PROMs were appraised in terms of extent of psychometric testing (extensive, moderate, low) and level of responsiveness (high, medium, low, unknown). RESULTS: More than 5000 abstracts were identified and screened to identify PROMs potentially suitable for measuring outcomes from primary care. 321 PROMs were long-listed, and twenty PROMs were catalogued in detail. There were five PROMs which measured change directly, without need for a baseline. Although these had less strong psychometric properties, they may be more responsive to change than PROMs which capture status at a point in time. No instruments provided coverage of all three constructs. Of the health status questionnaires, the most extensively tested was the SF-36. Of the health empowerment instruments, the PEI, PAM and heiQ provided the best combination of responsiveness and psychometric testing. The health perceptions instruments were all less responsive to change, and may measure a form of health perception which is difficult to shift in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review is the first of its kind to identify papers describing the development and validation of generic PROMs suitable for measuring outcomes from primary care. It identified that: 1) to date, there is no instrument which comprehensively covers the outcomes commonly sought in primary care, and 2) there are different benefits both to PROMs which measure status at a point in time, and PROMs which measure change directly. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0722-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5856382
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58563822018-03-22 Identification, description and appraisal of generic PROMs for primary care: a systematic review Murphy, Mairead Hollinghurst, Sandra Salisbury, Chris BMC Fam Pract Research Article BACKGROUND: Patients attend primary care with many types of problems and to achieve a range of possible outcomes. There is currently a lack of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) designed to capture these diverse outcomes. The objective of this systematic review was to identify, describe and appraise generic PROMs suitable for measuring outcomes from primary care. METHODS: We carried out a systematic Medline search, supplemented by other online and hand-searches. All potentially relevant PROMs were itemised in a long-list. Each PROM in the long-list which met inclusion criteria was included in a short-list. Short-listed PROMs were then described in terms of their measurement properties and construct, based on a previously published description of primary care outcome as three constructs: health status, health empowerment and health perceptions. PROMs were appraised in terms of extent of psychometric testing (extensive, moderate, low) and level of responsiveness (high, medium, low, unknown). RESULTS: More than 5000 abstracts were identified and screened to identify PROMs potentially suitable for measuring outcomes from primary care. 321 PROMs were long-listed, and twenty PROMs were catalogued in detail. There were five PROMs which measured change directly, without need for a baseline. Although these had less strong psychometric properties, they may be more responsive to change than PROMs which capture status at a point in time. No instruments provided coverage of all three constructs. Of the health status questionnaires, the most extensively tested was the SF-36. Of the health empowerment instruments, the PEI, PAM and heiQ provided the best combination of responsiveness and psychometric testing. The health perceptions instruments were all less responsive to change, and may measure a form of health perception which is difficult to shift in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review is the first of its kind to identify papers describing the development and validation of generic PROMs suitable for measuring outcomes from primary care. It identified that: 1) to date, there is no instrument which comprehensively covers the outcomes commonly sought in primary care, and 2) there are different benefits both to PROMs which measure status at a point in time, and PROMs which measure change directly. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0722-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-03-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5856382/ /pubmed/29544455 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-018-0722-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Murphy, Mairead
Hollinghurst, Sandra
Salisbury, Chris
Identification, description and appraisal of generic PROMs for primary care: a systematic review
title Identification, description and appraisal of generic PROMs for primary care: a systematic review
title_full Identification, description and appraisal of generic PROMs for primary care: a systematic review
title_fullStr Identification, description and appraisal of generic PROMs for primary care: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Identification, description and appraisal of generic PROMs for primary care: a systematic review
title_short Identification, description and appraisal of generic PROMs for primary care: a systematic review
title_sort identification, description and appraisal of generic proms for primary care: a systematic review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5856382/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29544455
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-018-0722-9
work_keys_str_mv AT murphymairead identificationdescriptionandappraisalofgenericpromsforprimarycareasystematicreview
AT hollinghurstsandra identificationdescriptionandappraisalofgenericpromsforprimarycareasystematicreview
AT salisburychris identificationdescriptionandappraisalofgenericpromsforprimarycareasystematicreview