Cargando…
Common patient-reported outcomes across ICHOM Standard Sets: the potential contribution of PROMIS®
BACKGROUND: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) develops condition-specific Standard Sets of outcomes to be measured in clinical practice for value-based healthcare evaluation. Standard Sets are developed by different working groups, which is inefficient and may lead...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8420145/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34488730 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-021-01624-5 |
_version_ | 1783748895223840768 |
---|---|
author | Terwee, Caroline B. Zuidgeest, Marloes Vonkeman, Harald E. Cella, David Haverman, Lotte Roorda, Leo D. |
author_facet | Terwee, Caroline B. Zuidgeest, Marloes Vonkeman, Harald E. Cella, David Haverman, Lotte Roorda, Leo D. |
author_sort | Terwee, Caroline B. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) develops condition-specific Standard Sets of outcomes to be measured in clinical practice for value-based healthcare evaluation. Standard Sets are developed by different working groups, which is inefficient and may lead to inconsistencies in selected PROs and PROMs. We aimed to identify common PROs across ICHOM Standard Sets and examined to what extend these PROs can be measured with a generic set of PROMs: the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®). METHODS: We extracted all PROs and recommended PROMs from 39 ICHOM Standard Sets. Similar PROs were categorized into unique PRO concepts. We examined which of these PRO concepts can be measured with PROMIS. RESULTS: A total of 307 PROs were identified in 39 ICHOM Standard Sets and 114 unique PROMs are recommended for measuring these PROs. The 307 PROs could be categorized into 22 unique PRO concepts. More than half (17/22) of these PRO concepts (covering about 75% of the PROs and 75% of the PROMs) can be measured with a PROMIS measure. CONCLUSION: Considerable overlap was found in PROs across ICHOM Standard Sets, and large differences in terminology used and PROMs recommended, even for the same PROs. We recommend a more universal and standardized approach to the selection of PROs and PROMs. Such an approach, focusing on a set of core PROs for all patients, measured with a system like PROMIS, may provide more opportunities for patient-centered care and facilitate the uptake of Standard Sets in clinical practice. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8420145 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84201452021-09-07 Common patient-reported outcomes across ICHOM Standard Sets: the potential contribution of PROMIS® Terwee, Caroline B. Zuidgeest, Marloes Vonkeman, Harald E. Cella, David Haverman, Lotte Roorda, Leo D. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Research Article BACKGROUND: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) develops condition-specific Standard Sets of outcomes to be measured in clinical practice for value-based healthcare evaluation. Standard Sets are developed by different working groups, which is inefficient and may lead to inconsistencies in selected PROs and PROMs. We aimed to identify common PROs across ICHOM Standard Sets and examined to what extend these PROs can be measured with a generic set of PROMs: the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®). METHODS: We extracted all PROs and recommended PROMs from 39 ICHOM Standard Sets. Similar PROs were categorized into unique PRO concepts. We examined which of these PRO concepts can be measured with PROMIS. RESULTS: A total of 307 PROs were identified in 39 ICHOM Standard Sets and 114 unique PROMs are recommended for measuring these PROs. The 307 PROs could be categorized into 22 unique PRO concepts. More than half (17/22) of these PRO concepts (covering about 75% of the PROs and 75% of the PROMs) can be measured with a PROMIS measure. CONCLUSION: Considerable overlap was found in PROs across ICHOM Standard Sets, and large differences in terminology used and PROMs recommended, even for the same PROs. We recommend a more universal and standardized approach to the selection of PROs and PROMs. Such an approach, focusing on a set of core PROs for all patients, measured with a system like PROMIS, may provide more opportunities for patient-centered care and facilitate the uptake of Standard Sets in clinical practice. BioMed Central 2021-09-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8420145/ /pubmed/34488730 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-021-01624-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Terwee, Caroline B. Zuidgeest, Marloes Vonkeman, Harald E. Cella, David Haverman, Lotte Roorda, Leo D. Common patient-reported outcomes across ICHOM Standard Sets: the potential contribution of PROMIS® |
title | Common patient-reported outcomes across ICHOM Standard Sets: the potential contribution of PROMIS® |
title_full | Common patient-reported outcomes across ICHOM Standard Sets: the potential contribution of PROMIS® |
title_fullStr | Common patient-reported outcomes across ICHOM Standard Sets: the potential contribution of PROMIS® |
title_full_unstemmed | Common patient-reported outcomes across ICHOM Standard Sets: the potential contribution of PROMIS® |
title_short | Common patient-reported outcomes across ICHOM Standard Sets: the potential contribution of PROMIS® |
title_sort | common patient-reported outcomes across ichom standard sets: the potential contribution of promis® |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8420145/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34488730 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-021-01624-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT terweecarolineb commonpatientreportedoutcomesacrossichomstandardsetsthepotentialcontributionofpromis AT zuidgeestmarloes commonpatientreportedoutcomesacrossichomstandardsetsthepotentialcontributionofpromis AT vonkemanharalde commonpatientreportedoutcomesacrossichomstandardsetsthepotentialcontributionofpromis AT celladavid commonpatientreportedoutcomesacrossichomstandardsetsthepotentialcontributionofpromis AT havermanlotte commonpatientreportedoutcomesacrossichomstandardsetsthepotentialcontributionofpromis AT roordaleod commonpatientreportedoutcomesacrossichomstandardsetsthepotentialcontributionofpromis |