scholarly journals Common patient-reported outcomes across ICHOM Standard Sets: the potential contribution of PROMIS®

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline B. Terwee ◽  
Marloes Zuidgeest ◽  
Harald E. Vonkeman ◽  
David Cella ◽  
Lotte Haverman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Measurement Information ◽  
Potential Contribution ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Evaluation Standard ◽  
Outcomes Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Generic Set ◽  
Standard Sets

Abstract 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.

scholarly journals Common Patient-Reported Outcomes across ICHOM Standard Sets - The potential contribution of PROMIS

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Terwee ◽  
Marloes Zuidgeest ◽  
Harald Vonkeman ◽  
David Cella ◽  
Lotte Haverman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Measurement Information ◽  
Potential Contribution ◽  
Evaluation Standard ◽  
Outcomes Measurement ◽  
Healthcare Evaluation ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Working Groups ◽  
Generic Set ◽  
Standard Sets

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. This study 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®).All PROs and recommended PROMs were extracted from all available ICHOM Standard Sets. Similar PROs were categorized into unique PRO concepts. Subsequently, it was examined which of these PRO concepts can be measured with PROMIS.A total of 216 PROs were identified in 28 ICHOM Standard Sets and 96 PROMs are recommended for measuring these PROs. Inconsistencies were found in selected PROs, terminology used, and recommended PROMs. The 216 PROs could be categorized into 21 unique PRO concepts. More than half (16/21) of these PRO concepts (covering 75% of the PROs and 79% of the PROMs) can be measured with a PROMIS measure.Considerable overlap was found in PROs across ICHOM Standard Sets, and large differences in terminology used and PROMs recommended, even for the same PROs. Inconsistencies in selected PROs and PROMs across Standard Sets questions the validity of the Standard Sets. We recommend a more universal and standardized approach to the selection of PRO and PROM, using PROMIS.

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System in spine surgery: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 405-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brittany E. Haws ◽  
Benjamin Khechen ◽  
Mundeep S. Bawa ◽  
Dil V. Patel ◽  
Harmeet S. Bawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Information System ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Neck Disability Index ◽  
Measurement Information ◽  
Strong Correlations ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Outcomes Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Measurement Information System

OBJECTIVEThe Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was developed to provide a standardized measure of clinical outcomes that is valid and reliable across a variety of patient populations. PROMIS has exhibited strong correlations with many legacy patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. However, it is unclear to what extent PROMIS has been used within the spine literature. In this context, the purpose of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the PROMIS literature for spine-specific populations that can be used to inform clinicians and guide future work. Specifically, the authors aimed to 1) evaluate publication trends of PROMIS in the spine literature, 2) assess how studies have used PROMIS, and 3) determine the correlations of PROMIS domains with legacy PROs as reported for spine populations.METHODSStudies reporting PROMIS scores among spine populations were identified from PubMed/MEDLINE and a review of reference lists from obtained studies. Articles were excluded if they did not report original results, or if the study population was not evaluated or treated for spine-related complaints. Characteristics of each study and journal in which it was published were recorded. Correlation of PROMIS to legacy PROs was reported with 0.1 ≤ |r| < 0.3, 0.3 ≤ |r| < 0.5, and |r| ≥ 0.5 indicating weak, moderate, and strong correlations, respectively.RESULTSTwenty-one articles were included in this analysis. Twelve studies assessed the validity of PROMIS whereas 9 used PROMIS as an outcome measure. The first study discussing PROMIS in patients with spine disorders was published in 2012, whereas the majority were published in 2017. The most common PROMIS domain used was Pain Interference. Assessments of PROMIS validity were most frequently performed with the Neck Disability Index. PROMIS domains demonstrated moderate to strong correlations with the legacy PROs that were evaluated. Studies assessing the validity of PROMIS exhibited substantial variability in PROMIS domains and legacy PROs used for comparisons.CONCLUSIONSThere has been a recent increase in the use of PROMIS within the spine literature. However, only a minority of studies have incorporated PROMIS for its intended use as an outcomes measure. Overall, PROMIS has exhibited moderate to strong correlations with a majority of legacy PROs used in the spine literature. These results suggest that PROMIS can be effective in the assessment and tracking of PROs among spine populations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document