scholarly journals Applying a framework to assess the impact of cardiovascular outcomes improvement research

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitchell N. Sarkies ◽  
Suzanne Robinson ◽  
Tom Briffa ◽  
Stephen J. Duffy ◽  
Mark Nelson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Cardiovascular Outcomes ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Research Domain

Abstract Background Health and medical research funding agencies are increasingly interested in measuring the impact of funded research. We present a research impact case study for the first four years of an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council funded Centre of Research Excellence in Cardiovascular Outcomes Improvement (2016–2020). The primary aim of this paper was to explore the application of a research impact matrix to assess the impact of cardiovascular outcomes improvement research. Methods We applied a research impact matrix developed from a systematic review of existing methodological frameworks used to measure research impact. This impact matrix was used as a bespoke tool to identify and understand various research impacts over different time frames. Data sources included a review of existing internal documentation from the research centre and publicly available information sources, informal iterative discussions with 10 centre investigators, and confirmation of information from centre grant and scholarship recipients. Results By July 2019, the impact on the short-term research domain category included over 41 direct publications, which were cited over 87 times (median journal impact factor of 2.84). There were over 61 conference presentations, seven PhD candidacies, five new academic collaborations, and six new database linkages conducted. The impact on the mid-term research domain category involved contributions towards the development of a national cardiac registry, cardiovascular guidelines, application for a Medicare Benefits Schedule reimbursement item number, introduction of patient-reported outcome measures into several databases, and the establishment of nine new industry collaborations. Evidence of long-term impacts were described as the development and use of contemporary management for aortic stenosis, a cardiovascular risk prediction model and prevention targets in several data registries, and the establishment of cost-effectiveness for stenting compared to surgery. Conclusions We considered the research impact matrix a feasible tool to identify evidence of academic and policy impact in the short- to midterm; however, we experienced challenges in capturing long-term impacts. Cost containment and broader economic impacts represented another difficult area of impact to measure.

Optimizing electronic capture of patient-reported outcome measures in oncology clinical trials: lessons learned from a qualitative study

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (17) ◽  
pp. 1195-1204
Author(s):  
Florence D Mowlem ◽  
Brad Sanderson ◽  
Jill V Platko ◽  
Bill Byrom
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Anticancer Treatment ◽  
Fit For Purpose ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Electronic Implementation

Aim: To understand the impact of anticancer treatment on oncology patients’ ability to use electronic solutions for completing patient-reported outcomes (ePRO). Materials & methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven individuals who had experienced a cancer diagnosis and treatment. Results: Participants reported that the following would impact the ability to interact with an ePRO solution: peripheral neuropathy of the hands (4/7), fatigue and/or concentration and memory issues (6/7), where they are in a treatment cycle (5/7). Approaches to improve usability included: larger, well-spaced buttons to deal with finger numbness, the ability to pause a survey and complete at a later point and presenting the recall period with every question to reduce reliance on memory. Conclusion: Symptoms associated with cancers and anticancer treatments can impact the use of technologies. The recommendations for optimizing the electronic implementation of patient-reported outcome instruments in this population provides the potential to improve data quality in oncology trials and places patient needs at the forefront to ensure ‘fit-for-purpose’ solutions.

Do patient and proxy agree? Long-term changes in multiple sclerosis physical impact and walking ability on patient-reported outcome scales

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (12) ◽  
pp. 1616-1623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith M Sonder ◽  
Lisanne J Balk ◽  
Libertje VAE Bosma ◽  
Chris H Polman ◽  
Bernard MJ Uitdehaag
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Walking Ability ◽  
Impact Scale ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Proxy Responses ◽  
Physical Impact ◽  
The Impact

Background: Patient-reported outcome scales (PROs) are useful in monitoring changes in multiple sclerosis (MS) over time. Although these scales are reliable and valid measures in longitudinal studies in MS patients, it is unknown what the impact is when obtaining longitudinal data from proxies. Objective: The objective of this paper is to compare longitudinal changes in patient and proxy responses on PROs assessing physical impact of MS and walking ability. Methods: In a prospective observational study, data on the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29 physical) and Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale (MSWS-12) were obtained from 137 patient-proxy couples at baseline and at two-year follow-up. Demographic and disease-related variables explaining agreement or disagreement between patients and proxies were investigated using linear regression analyses. Results: Full agreement was found in 56% (MSIS) and 62% (MSWS) of the patient-proxy couples. Complete disagreement was very rare for both scales (2% MSIS, 5% MSWS). When patients were more positive than proxies, a higher age, longer disease duration, longer patient-proxy relationship and increased levels of depression, anxiety and caregiver burden in proxies were observed. Conclusion: In the majority of the patient-proxy couples there was agreement. Proxies can serve as a valuable source of information, but caution remains essential when using scores from proxies.

The long-term outcome of simple trapeziectomy

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas F. M. Yeoman ◽  
Oliver Stone ◽  
Paul J. Jenkins ◽  
Jane E. McEachan
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Term Outcome ◽  
Long Term Outcome ◽  
Sustained Improvement ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Joint Arthritis

The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term outcome of simple trapeziectomy by a single surgeon and to compare this with pre-operative function. Two hundred and five patients completed the shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH) and the EuroQoL five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D) scores at a mean of 8.2 (range 3.5–17) years after simple trapeziectomy. There were no pre-operative scores available, so case controls were selected from our prospective database to compare pre- and post-operative patient-reported outcome measures. The mean QuickDASH score of the post-operative matched group was 37 (SD 17.0) and the mean EQ-5D was 0.56 (SD 0.31). The mean QuickDASH score of the pre-operative group was 54 (SD 17.0). The mean difference in QuickDASH between the pre- and post-operative groups was 17 (95% CI: 8 to 26, p = 0.0003). This study demonstrated a significant and sustained improvement in patient-reported function after simple trapeziectomy. It supports that simple trapeziectomy is a simple, safe and effective treatment for advanced trapeziometacarpal joint arthritis. Level of evidence: IV

scholarly journals A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures in paediatric otolaryngology

2017 ◽  
Vol 132 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Powell ◽  
S Powell ◽  
A Robson
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
English Language ◽  
Health Assessment ◽  
Paediatric Population ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Specific Patient ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact

AbstractBackground:Recently, there has been increased emphasis on the development and application of patient-reported outcome measures. This drive to assess the impact of illness or interventions, from the patient's perspective, has resulted in a greater number of available questionnaires. The importance of selecting an appropriate patient-reported outcome measure is specifically emphasised in the paediatric population. The literature on patient-reported outcome measures used in paediatric otolaryngology was reviewed.Methods:A comprehensive literature search was conducted using the databases Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycInfo, using the terms: ‘health assessment questionnaire’, ‘structured questionnaire’, ‘questionnaire’, ‘patient reported outcome measures’, ‘PROM’, ‘quality of life’ or ‘survey’, and ‘children’ or ‘otolaryngology’. The search was limited to English-language articles published between 1996 and 2016.Results:The search yielded 656 articles, of which 63 were considered relevant. This included general paediatric patient-reported outcome measures applied to otolaryngology, and paediatric otolaryngology disease-specific patient-reported outcome measures.Conclusion:A large collection of patient-reported outcome measures are described in the paediatric otolaryngology literature. Greater standardisation of the patient-reported outcome measures used in paediatric otolaryngology would assist in pooling of data and increase the validation of tools used.

scholarly journals The impact of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice for pain: a systematic review

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle M. Holmes ◽  
George Lewith ◽  
David Newell ◽  
Jonathan Field ◽  
Felicity L. Bishop
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document