Measuring psychological outcomes in paediatric settings: Making outcomes meaningful using client-defined perspectives

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 594-603
Author(s):  
Halina Flannery ◽  
Jenna Jacob
Keyword(s):  
Young People ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Chronic Health Conditions ◽  
Health Conditions ◽  
Psychological Outcome ◽  
Chronic Health ◽  
Patient Reported

There is a growing drive to develop and implement patient-reported outcome measures within paediatric health services, particularly for young people living with chronic health conditions; however, there is little consensus on how best to do this in meaningful ways within psychological services working alongside medical teams. This reflective commentary considers some of the challenges of collecting psychological outcome measures in paediatric services and considers alternative approaches to making outcome measurement meaningful. All measures have their limitations; however, they become meaningless if they are not used in meaningful and considered ways with young people. Client-defined outcome measurement, such as goal-based outcome measures, alongside other types of measurement, can capture outcomes of meaning to young people living with chronic health conditions, and can enable them to feed into a shared decision-making process.

scholarly journals Getting the measure of outcomes in clinical practice

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 165-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glyn Lewis ◽  
Helen Killaspy
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Quality Of Services ◽  
List Type ◽  
Regression To The Mean ◽  
Process Measures ◽  
Patient Reported

SummaryIt has been argued that the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) should be encouraged in order to improve the quality of services and even to determine payment. Clinician-rated outcome measures (CROMs), patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) and process measures also should be considered in evaluating healthcare quality. We discuss difficulties that the routine use of outcome measures might pose for psychiatric services. When outcome and experience measures are used to evaluate services they are difficult to interpret because of differences in case mix and regression to the mean. We conclude that PROMs and CROMs could be useful for monitoring the progress of individuals and that clinical audit still has an important role to play in improving the quality of services.LEARNING OBJECTIVESUnderstand the difference between process measurement and outcome measurement.Understand the limitation of using outcome measures to assess and promote quality of services.Understand the difficulties in assessing the psychometric properties and validity of outcome measures.

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for goalsetting and outcome measurement in primary care physiotherapy, an explorative field study

Physiotherapy ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 103 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone A. van Dulmen ◽  
Philip J. van der Wees ◽  
J. Bart Staal ◽  
J.C.C. Braspenning ◽  
Maria W.G. Nijhuis-van der Sanden
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Field Study ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Patient Reported

scholarly journals Young people’s perspectives on patient-reported outcome measures in inflammatory arthritis: results of a multicentre European qualitative study from a EULAR task force

RMD Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. e001517
Author(s):  
Erika Mosor ◽  
Paul Studenic ◽  
Alessia Alunno ◽  
Ivan Padjen ◽  
Wendy Olsder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Young People ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Inflammatory Arthritis ◽  
Positive Attitude ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Patient Reported

IntroductionAlthough patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in clinical practice and research, it is unclear whether these instruments cover the perspective of young people with inflammatory arthritis (IA). The aims of this study were to explore whether PROMs commonly used in IA adequately cover the perspective of young people from different European countries.MethodsA multinational qualitative study was conducted in Austria, Croatia, Italy and the Netherlands. Young people with either rheumatoid arthritis (RA), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), Still’s disease, psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA), aged 18–35 years, participated in semistructured focus group interviews. Thematic analysis was used and data saturation was defined as no new emergent concepts in at least three subsequent focus groups.ResultsFifty-three patients (21 with RA/JIA/Still’s, 17 with PsA, 15 with SpA; 72% women) participated in 12 focus groups. Participants expressed a general positive attitude towards PROMs and emphasised their importance in clinical practice. In addition, 48 lower level concepts were extracted and summarised into 6 higher level concepts describing potential issues for improvement. These included: need for lay-term information regarding the purpose of using PROMs; updates of certain outdated items and using digital technology for data acquisition. Some participants admitted their tendency to rate pain, fatigue or disease activity differently from what they actually felt for various reasons.ConclusionsDespite their general positive attitude, young people with IA suggested areas for PROM development to ensure that important concepts are included, making PROMs relevant over the entire course of a chronic disease.

scholarly journals Outcome measurement in trauma surgery with a fracture database and clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Bilici ◽  
M Morgenstern ◽  
C Frank ◽  
N Alispahic ◽  
A Müller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Role Model ◽  
Query Language ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Trauma Surgery ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Usa

Abstract Objective Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) gain growing attention. The Food and Drug Administration suggested in 2009 to have PROMs for every new treatment and technology. The use of PROMs was further promoted by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 in the USA. Recommendations from other national and international organizations include the OECD's Project of Patient-Reported Indicator Surveys (PaRIS) and the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM). Our development and initiation of a Fracture Database started early in 2018. We orientated our database on the role model of the Swedish Fracture Registry. Methods REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) is a web interface for a SQL (Structured Query Language)-Database. We used it to program the Fracture Registry. We collect data about demographics, diagnosis, treatment, adverse events, clinical outcomes, and PROMs. The PROMS are recorded with the Software 'Heartbeat ONE' vs. 6.15.4. Inclusion criteria are all patients with fractures of the upper and lower extremity, including the pelvis and multiple injuries, treated surgically. Excluded are all patients with fractures of the hand as monotrauma and non-surgical treatment. We established questionnaire sets for each anatomical region. Every hospitalized patient is screened for inclusion criteria to get the baseline PROMs. Follow-up PROMs are collected at 3-months and 12-months in our outpatient clinic. Results In five months of collecting PROMs, we have evaluated 599 patients, 521 fulfilling the inclusion criteria. 329 (63%) questionnaire sets were completed. The mean time for answering the questions was 11-20 minutes. The input rate of 63% for PROMs accounts for the start of the process, with 22 (4%) patients being dismissed before answering the questionnaires. 93 (18%) patients denied participation. 52 (10%) patients were not able to participate (dementia, delirium). Other causes for missing data were language barriers (n = 28; 5%), medical reasons like polytraumatized patients (n = 4; 0.8%), and deceased patients (n = 15; 2.9%). Conclusion Most Orthopaedic Trauma centers publish data about PROMs from surgically treated patients. Starting in the first quarter of 2021, we will include non-surgically treated patients. We have optimized the process of including patients. Our aim is a response rate of more than 80% within this year to get representing data.

scholarly journals Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of Utilizing Person-Generated Health Data in the Case of Simulated Stroke Rehabilitation: Development Method

10.2196/16827 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. e16827 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerardo Luis Dimaguila ◽  
Kathleen Gray ◽  
Mark Merolli
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Clinical Work ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Health Data ◽  
Health Conditions ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Development Method ◽  
Patient Reported

Background Person-generated health data (PGHD) are health data that people generate, record, and analyze for themselves. Although the health benefits of PGHD use have been reported, there is no systematic way for patients to measure and report the health effects they experience from using their PGHD. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) allow patients to systematically self-report their outcomes of a health care service. They generate first-hand evidence of the impact of health care services and are able to reflect the real-world diversity of actual patients and management approaches. Therefore, this paper argues that a PROM of utilizing PGHD, or PROM-PGHD, is necessary to help build evidence-based practice in clinical work with PGHD. Objective This paper aims to describe a method for developing PROMs for people who are using PGHD in conjunction with their clinical care—PROM-PGHD, and the method is illustrated through a case study. Methods The five-step qualitative item review (QIR) method was augmented to guide the development of a PROM-PGHD. However, using QIR as a guide to develop a PROM-PGHD requires additional socio-technical consideration of the PGHD and the health technologies from which they are produced. Therefore, the QIR method is augmented for developing a PROM-PGHD, resulting in the PROM-PGHD development method. Results A worked example was used to illustrate how the PROM-PGHD development method may be used systematically to develop PROMs applicable across a range of PGHD technology types used in relation to various health conditions. Conclusions This paper describes and illustrates a method for developing a PROM-PGHD, which may be applied to many different cases of health conditions and technology categories. When applied to other cases of health conditions and technology categories, the method could have broad relevance for evidence-based practice in clinical work with PGHD.

scholarly journals Selection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for use in health systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (S2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fatima Al Sayah ◽  
Xuejing Jin ◽  
Jeffrey A. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Health System ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Selection Of

AbstractMany healthcare systems around the world have been increasingly using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine outcome measurement to enhance patient-centered care and incorporate the patient’s perspective in health system performance evaluation. One of the key steps in using PROMs in health systems is selecting the appropriate measure(s) to serve the purpose and context of measurement. However, the availability of many PROMs makes this choice rather challenging. Our aim was to provide an integrated approach for PROM(s) selection for use by end-users in health systems.The proposed approach was based on relevant literature and existing guidebooks that addressed PROMs selection in various areas and for various purposes, as well as on our experience working with many health system users of PROMs in Canada. The proposed approach includes the following steps: (1) Establish PROMs selection committee; (2) Identify the focus, scope, and type of PROM measurement; (3) Identify potential PROM(s); (4) Review practical considerations for each of the identified PROMs; (5) Review measurement properties of shortlisted PROMs; (6) Review patient acceptance of shortlisted PROMs; (7) Recommend a PROM(s); and (8) Pilot the selected PROM(s). The selection of appropriate PROMs is one step in the successful implementation of PROMs within health systems, albeit, an essential step. We provide guidance for the selection of PROMs to satisfy all potential usages at the micro (patient-clinician), meso (organization), and macro (system) levels within the health system. Selecting PROMs that satisfy all these purposes is essential to ensure continuity and standardization of measurement over time. This is an iterative process and users should consider all the available information from all presented steps in selecting PROMs. Each of these considerations has a different weight in diverse clinical contexts and settings with various types of patients and resources.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document