Cargando…
Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings
PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs/PREMs) are well established in research for many health conditions, but barriers persist for implementing them in routine care. Implementation science (IS) offers a potential way forward, but its application has been limited for PROMs/...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8528754/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32651805 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02564-9 |
_version_ | 1784586315957796864 |
---|---|
author | Stover, Angela M. Haverman, Lotte van Oers, Hedy A. Greenhalgh, Joanne Potter, Caroline M. |
author_facet | Stover, Angela M. Haverman, Lotte van Oers, Hedy A. Greenhalgh, Joanne Potter, Caroline M. |
author_sort | Stover, Angela M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs/PREMs) are well established in research for many health conditions, but barriers persist for implementing them in routine care. Implementation science (IS) offers a potential way forward, but its application has been limited for PROMs/PREMs. METHODS: We compare similarities and differences for widely used IS frameworks and their applicability for implementing PROMs/PREMs through case studies. Three case studies implemented PROMs: (1) pain clinics in Canada; (2) oncology clinics in Australia; and (3) pediatric/adult clinics for chronic conditions in the Netherlands. The fourth case study is planning PREMs implementation in Canadian primary care clinics. We compare case studies on barriers, enablers, implementation strategies, and evaluation. RESULTS: Case studies used IS frameworks to systematize barriers, to develop implementation strategies for clinics, and to evaluate implementation effectiveness. Across case studies, consistent PROM/PREM implementation barriers were technology, uncertainty about how or why to use PROMs/PREMs, and competing demands from established clinical workflows. Enabling factors in clinics were context specific. Implementation support strategies changed during pre-implementation, implementation, and post-implementation stages. Evaluation approaches were inconsistent across case studies, and thus, we present example evaluation metrics specific to PROMs/PREMs. CONCLUSION: Multilevel IS frameworks are necessary for PROM/PREM implementation given the complexity. In cross-study comparisons, barriers to PROM/PREM implementation were consistent across patient populations and care settings, but enablers were context specific, suggesting the need for tailored implementation strategies based on clinic resources. Theoretically guided studies are needed to clarify how, why, and in what circumstances IS principles lead to successful PROM/PREM integration and sustainability. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-020-02564-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8528754 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85287542021-11-04 Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings Stover, Angela M. Haverman, Lotte van Oers, Hedy A. Greenhalgh, Joanne Potter, Caroline M. Qual Life Res Special Section: Feedback Tools PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs/PREMs) are well established in research for many health conditions, but barriers persist for implementing them in routine care. Implementation science (IS) offers a potential way forward, but its application has been limited for PROMs/PREMs. METHODS: We compare similarities and differences for widely used IS frameworks and their applicability for implementing PROMs/PREMs through case studies. Three case studies implemented PROMs: (1) pain clinics in Canada; (2) oncology clinics in Australia; and (3) pediatric/adult clinics for chronic conditions in the Netherlands. The fourth case study is planning PREMs implementation in Canadian primary care clinics. We compare case studies on barriers, enablers, implementation strategies, and evaluation. RESULTS: Case studies used IS frameworks to systematize barriers, to develop implementation strategies for clinics, and to evaluate implementation effectiveness. Across case studies, consistent PROM/PREM implementation barriers were technology, uncertainty about how or why to use PROMs/PREMs, and competing demands from established clinical workflows. Enabling factors in clinics were context specific. Implementation support strategies changed during pre-implementation, implementation, and post-implementation stages. Evaluation approaches were inconsistent across case studies, and thus, we present example evaluation metrics specific to PROMs/PREMs. CONCLUSION: Multilevel IS frameworks are necessary for PROM/PREM implementation given the complexity. In cross-study comparisons, barriers to PROM/PREM implementation were consistent across patient populations and care settings, but enablers were context specific, suggesting the need for tailored implementation strategies based on clinic resources. Theoretically guided studies are needed to clarify how, why, and in what circumstances IS principles lead to successful PROM/PREM integration and sustainability. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-020-02564-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to users. Springer International Publishing 2020-07-10 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8528754/ /pubmed/32651805 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02564-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 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/) . |
spellingShingle | Special Section: Feedback Tools Stover, Angela M. Haverman, Lotte van Oers, Hedy A. Greenhalgh, Joanne Potter, Caroline M. Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings |
title | Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings |
title_full | Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings |
title_fullStr | Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings |
title_full_unstemmed | Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings |
title_short | Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings |
title_sort | using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (prom) initiatives in routine care settings |
topic | Special Section: Feedback Tools |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8528754/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32651805 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02564-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT stoverangelam usinganimplementationscienceapproachtoimplementandevaluatepatientreportedoutcomemeasuresprominitiativesinroutinecaresettings AT havermanlotte usinganimplementationscienceapproachtoimplementandevaluatepatientreportedoutcomemeasuresprominitiativesinroutinecaresettings AT vanoershedya usinganimplementationscienceapproachtoimplementandevaluatepatientreportedoutcomemeasuresprominitiativesinroutinecaresettings AT greenhalghjoanne usinganimplementationscienceapproachtoimplementandevaluatepatientreportedoutcomemeasuresprominitiativesinroutinecaresettings AT pottercarolinem usinganimplementationscienceapproachtoimplementandevaluatepatientreportedoutcomemeasuresprominitiativesinroutinecaresettings AT usinganimplementationscienceapproachtoimplementandevaluatepatientreportedoutcomemeasuresprominitiativesinroutinecaresettings |