Cargando…

Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition‐specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues

BACKGROUND: Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires that collect health outcomes directly from the people who experience them. This review critically synthesizes information on generic and selected condition‐specific PROMs to describe trends and contemporary issues regarding the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Churruca, Kate, Pomare, Chiara, Ellis, Louise A., Long, Janet C., Henderson, Suzanna B., Murphy, Lisa E. D., Leahy, Christopher J., Braithwaite, Jeffrey
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8369118/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33949755
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13254
_version_ 1783739223496458240
author Churruca, Kate
Pomare, Chiara
Ellis, Louise A.
Long, Janet C.
Henderson, Suzanna B.
Murphy, Lisa E. D.
Leahy, Christopher J.
Braithwaite, Jeffrey
author_facet Churruca, Kate
Pomare, Chiara
Ellis, Louise A.
Long, Janet C.
Henderson, Suzanna B.
Murphy, Lisa E. D.
Leahy, Christopher J.
Braithwaite, Jeffrey
author_sort Churruca, Kate
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires that collect health outcomes directly from the people who experience them. This review critically synthesizes information on generic and selected condition‐specific PROMs to describe trends and contemporary issues regarding their development, validation and application. METHODS: We reviewed academic and grey literature on validated PROMs by searching databases, prominent websites, Google Scholar and Google Search. The identification of condition‐specific PROMs was limited to common conditions and those with a high burden of disease (eg cancers, cardiovascular disorders). Trends and contemporary issues in the development, validation and application of PROMs were critically evaluated. RESULTS: The search yielded 315 generic and condition‐specific PROMs. The largest numbers of measures were identified for generic PROMs, musculoskeletal conditions and cancers. The earliest published PROMs were in mental health‐related conditions. The number of PROMs grew substantially between 1980s and 2000s but slowed more recently. The number of publications discussing PROMs continues to increase. Issues identified include the use of computer‐adaptive testing and increasing concerns about the appropriateness of using PROMs developed and validated for specific purposes (eg research) for other reasons (eg clinical decision making). CONCLUSIONS: The term PROM is a relatively new designation for a range of measures that have existed since at least the 1960s. Although literature on PROMs continues to expand, challenges remain in selecting reliable and valid tools that are fit‐for‐purpose from the many existing instruments. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Consumers were not directly involved in this review; however, its outcome will be used in programmes that engage and partner with consumers.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8369118
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83691182021-08-23 Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition‐specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues Churruca, Kate Pomare, Chiara Ellis, Louise A. Long, Janet C. Henderson, Suzanna B. Murphy, Lisa E. D. Leahy, Christopher J. Braithwaite, Jeffrey Health Expect Review Articles BACKGROUND: Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires that collect health outcomes directly from the people who experience them. This review critically synthesizes information on generic and selected condition‐specific PROMs to describe trends and contemporary issues regarding their development, validation and application. METHODS: We reviewed academic and grey literature on validated PROMs by searching databases, prominent websites, Google Scholar and Google Search. The identification of condition‐specific PROMs was limited to common conditions and those with a high burden of disease (eg cancers, cardiovascular disorders). Trends and contemporary issues in the development, validation and application of PROMs were critically evaluated. RESULTS: The search yielded 315 generic and condition‐specific PROMs. The largest numbers of measures were identified for generic PROMs, musculoskeletal conditions and cancers. The earliest published PROMs were in mental health‐related conditions. The number of PROMs grew substantially between 1980s and 2000s but slowed more recently. The number of publications discussing PROMs continues to increase. Issues identified include the use of computer‐adaptive testing and increasing concerns about the appropriateness of using PROMs developed and validated for specific purposes (eg research) for other reasons (eg clinical decision making). CONCLUSIONS: The term PROM is a relatively new designation for a range of measures that have existed since at least the 1960s. Although literature on PROMs continues to expand, challenges remain in selecting reliable and valid tools that are fit‐for‐purpose from the many existing instruments. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Consumers were not directly involved in this review; however, its outcome will be used in programmes that engage and partner with consumers. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-05-05 2021-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8369118/ /pubmed/33949755 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13254 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Articles
Churruca, Kate
Pomare, Chiara
Ellis, Louise A.
Long, Janet C.
Henderson, Suzanna B.
Murphy, Lisa E. D.
Leahy, Christopher J.
Braithwaite, Jeffrey
Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition‐specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues
title Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition‐specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues
title_full Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition‐specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues
title_fullStr Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition‐specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues
title_full_unstemmed Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition‐specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues
title_short Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition‐specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues
title_sort patient‐reported outcome measures (proms): a review of generic and condition‐specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues
topic Review Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8369118/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33949755
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13254
work_keys_str_mv AT churrucakate patientreportedoutcomemeasurespromsareviewofgenericandconditionspecificmeasuresandadiscussionoftrendsandissues
AT pomarechiara patientreportedoutcomemeasurespromsareviewofgenericandconditionspecificmeasuresandadiscussionoftrendsandissues
AT ellislouisea patientreportedoutcomemeasurespromsareviewofgenericandconditionspecificmeasuresandadiscussionoftrendsandissues
AT longjanetc patientreportedoutcomemeasurespromsareviewofgenericandconditionspecificmeasuresandadiscussionoftrendsandissues
AT hendersonsuzannab patientreportedoutcomemeasurespromsareviewofgenericandconditionspecificmeasuresandadiscussionoftrendsandissues
AT murphylisaed patientreportedoutcomemeasurespromsareviewofgenericandconditionspecificmeasuresandadiscussionoftrendsandissues
AT leahychristopherj patientreportedoutcomemeasurespromsareviewofgenericandconditionspecificmeasuresandadiscussionoftrendsandissues
AT braithwaitejeffrey patientreportedoutcomemeasurespromsareviewofgenericandconditionspecificmeasuresandadiscussionoftrendsandissues