scholarly journals Use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) by orthopedic surgeons in Saudi Arabia

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fayez Alshehri ◽  
Abdulaziz Alarabi ◽  
Mohammed Alharthi ◽  
Thamer Alanazi ◽  
Ahmed Alohali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Clinical Work ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Hard Copy ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Orthopedic Surgeons ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background There is increasing literature on the usefulness of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), but far fewer studies to determine their use by orthopedic surgeons and the barriers they face in applying PROMs in their daily clinical activity. Methods Cross-sectional study using a questionnaire that was distributed in both soft and hard copy formats to a sample of 262 orthopedic surgeons. Participants included orthopedic surgeons who are employed by the Ministry of Health (MOH) in Riyadh and the Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire was distributed through on-site visitations to orthopedic departments in MOH hospitals as well as through online correspondence by email, WhatsApp, and social media. Results The study sample included 262 orthopedic surgeons (13.7% females and 86.3% males). Surgeons aged < 34, 35–44, and 45–54 years old represented 28.66%, 38.9%, and 20.2% of the study sample, respectively. The majority of the included surgeons did not use PROMs (69.1%), and some (17.2%) used it for research purposes. Only 5% used it regularly in daily clinical work. Conclusion The clinical use of PROMs among orthopedic surgeons was negligible, even though an overwhelming majority were interested in using PROMs. The reasons provided included a lack of knowledge on how to use PROMs and the perception that it is too time-consuming to add to regular clinical routine. There should be more efforts towards training surgeons on how to use PROMs, whereas increasing compatibility with existing software tools used by MOH hospitals may help offset time-related reservations.

scholarly journals Use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) by Orthopedic Surgeons in Saudi Arabia

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fayez Alshehri ◽  
Abdulaziz Alarabi ◽  
Mohammed Alharthi ◽  
Thamer Alanazi ◽  
Ahmed Alohali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Clinical Work ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Hard Copy ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Orthopedic Surgeons ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background There is increasing literature on the usefulness of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), but far fewer studies to determine their use by orthopedic surgeons and the barriers they face in applying PROMs in their daily clinical activity.Methods Cross-sectional study using a questionnaire that was distributed in both soft and hard copy formats to a sample of 262 orthopedic surgeons. Participants included orthopedic surgeons who are employed by the Ministry of Health (MOH) in Riyadh and the Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire was distributed through onsite visitations to orthopedic departments in MOH hospitals as well as through online correspondence by email, WhatsApp, and social media.Results The study sample included 262 orthopedic surgeons (13.7% females and 86.3% males). Surgeons aged < 34, 35 – 44, and 45 - 54 years old represented 28.66%, 38.9%, and 20.2% of the study sample, respectively. The majority of the included surgeons did not use PROMs (69.1%) and some (17.2%) used it for research purposes. Only 5% used it regularly in daily clinical work.Conclusion The clinical use of PROMs among orthopedic surgeons was negligible, even though an overwhelming majority were interested in using PROMs. The reasons provided included a lack of knowledge on how to use PROMs and the perception that it is too time-consuming to add to regular clinical routine. There should be more effort towards training surgeons on how to use PROMs, whereas increasing compatibility with existing software tools used by MOH hospitals may help offset time-related reservations.

Use of Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) by Orthopedic Surgeons in Saudi Arabia

2021 ◽  
pp. 38
Author(s):  
Thamer Alanazi
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Clinical Work ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Hard Copy ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Orthopedic Surgeons ◽  
Patient Reported

Introduction: There is increasing literature on the usefulness of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), but far fewer studies to determine their use by orthopedic surgeons and the barriers they face in applying PROMs in their daily clinical activity. Methodology: Cross-sectional study using a questionnaire that was distributed in both soft and hard copy formats to a sample of 262 orthopedic surgeons. Participants included orthopedic surgeons who are employed by the Ministry of Health (MOH) in Riyadh and the Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire was distributed through on-site visitations to orthopedic departments in MOH hospitals as well as through online correspondence by email, WhatsApp, and social media. Result: The study sample included 262 orthopedic surgeons (13.7% females and 86.3% males). Surgeons aged < 34, 35-44, and 45-54 years old represented 28.66%, 38.9%, and 20.2% of the study sample, respectively. The majority of the included surgeons did not use PROMs (69.1%), and some (17.2%) used it for research purposes. Only 5% used it regularly in daily clinical work. Conclusion: The clinical use of PROMs among orthopedic surgeons was negligible, even though an overwhelming majority were interested in using PROMs. The reasons provided included a lack of knowledge on how to use PROMs and the perception that it is too time-consuming to add to regular clinical routine. There should be more efforts towards training surgeons on how to use PROMs, whereas increasing compatibility with existing software tools used by MOH hospitals may help offset time-related reservations.

scholarly journals Patient-reported outcome measures in hemodialysis patients: results of the first multicenter cross-sectional ePROMs study in France

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdallah Guerraoui ◽  
Mathilde Prezelin-Reydit ◽  
Anne Kolko ◽  
Marie Lino-Daniel ◽  
Charlotte Dumas de Roque ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Recovery Time ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Dialysis Session ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cardiovascular Comorbidities ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background Kidney failure with replacement therapy and hemodialysis are associated with a decrease in quality of life (QOL). Self-reported QOL symptoms are not always prioritized by the medical team, potentially leading to conflicting priorities with patients. Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) allow physicians to better identify these symptoms. The objective was to describe the prevalence of symptoms self-reported by hemodialysis (HD) patients. Methods A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted in three HD centers. Patients were included if they were 18 years old or over treated with HD for at least 3 months in a center. Data were collected by the patient via a self-administered ePROMs questionnaire. Data included patient characteristics, post-dialysis fatigue and intensity, recovery time after a session, perceived stress, impaired sleep the day before the dialysis session, current state of health and the change from the past year. A multivariate analysis was conducted to identify relations between symptoms. Results In total, we included 173 patients with a mean age of 66.2 years, a mean ± SD hemodialysis duration of 48.9 ± 58.02 months. The prevalence of fatigue was 72%. 66% had a high level of stress (level B or C). Recovery time was more than 6 h after a HD session for 25% of patients and 78% declared they had a better or unchanged health status than the previous year. Sleep disturbance was associated with cardiovascular comorbidities (OR 5.08 [95% CI, 1.56 to 16.59], p = 0.007). Conclusions Fatigue and stress were the main symptoms reported by HD patients. The patient’s care teams should better consider these symptoms.

scholarly journals Digital patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for remote monitoring of patients on cancer treatment: a cross-sectional questionnaire feasibility study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayuran Ananth Sivanandan ◽  
Catherine Sharma ◽  
Pippa Bullard ◽  
Judith Christian
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Remote Monitoring ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Severe Toxicity ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Treatment Pathways ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Patient Reported

BACKGROUND Oncology has increasing outpatient activity related to increased cancer incidence, better survival rates and more treatments. Innovative technological solutions could help deal with this increasing demand and digital patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to identify those patients that need a face-to-face (FTF) appointment is one potential approach. OBJECTIVE Our study aimed to assess the feasibility of digital PROM questionnaires to enable remote symptom monitoring for patients on cancer treatment and their ability to determine the requirement for a FTF appointment. METHODS This study was performed at a tertiary oncology centre between December 2018 and February 2019. Target clinics covered both systemic therapy and radiotherapy cohorts. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) helped form the basis for acute toxicity questionnaires which were adapted into patient-friendly language. Treatment-specific digital PROM questionnaires were answered by patients and their clinicians alongside face-to-face appointments. Patients and clinicians did not see each other’s results, which were not used for clinical decisions. Agreement between patients and clinicians was assessed through descriptive statistics. Patient and staff feedback was also obtained. RESULTS 90 patients took part in the study across 10 different treatment pathways. By comparing paired patient and clinician responses, the sensitivity of the patient-completed questionnaires in correctly determining the need for FTF review was 93.6% and no patients with severe toxicity would have been missed with the questionnaires. Digital PROMs revealed 28.9% of participating patients did not need FTF review based on their symptoms. Certain oncological treatment pathways, such as immunotherapy, were found to have a larger proportion of patients with minimal symptoms compared to others, such as conventional chemotherapy. Patient and staff feedback showed high approval with digital PROMs and their potential for use in remote monitoring. CONCLUSIONS Digital PROM questionnaires can feasibly determine the need for FTF review in ‘on treatment’ oncology clinics. Their use with specific treatments could safely reduce the requirement for FTF care and future work should evaluate their application in the remote monitoring of patients.

scholarly journals Clinical Significance and Diagnostic Value of Pain Extent Extracted from Pain Drawings: A Scoping Review

Diagnostics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 604
Author(s):  
Marco Barbero ◽  
Marcos J. Navarro-Santana ◽  
María Palacios-Ceña ◽  
Ricardo Ortega-Santiago ◽  
Corrado Cescon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Pain Drawings ◽  
Pain Extent

The current scoping review aimed to map current literature investigating the relationship between pain extent extracted from pain drawings with clinical, psychological, and psycho-physiological patient-reported outcome measures in people with pain. Electronic databases were searched for cross-sectional cohort studies that collected pain drawings using digital technology or a pen-on-paper approach and assessed for correlations between pain extent and clinical, psychological or psycho-physical outcomes. Data were extracted by two different reviewers. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Mapping of the results included: 1, description of included studies; 2, summary of results; and 3, identification of gaps in the existing literature. Eleven cross-sectional cohort studies were included. The pain disorders considered were heterogeneous, ranging from musculoskeletal to neuropathic conditions, and from localized to generalized pain conditions. All studies included pain and/or pain-related disability as clinical outcomes. Psychological outcomes included depression and anxiety, kinesiophobia and catastrophism. Psycho-physical measures included pressure or thermal pain thresholds. Ten studies were considered of high methodological quality. There was heterogeneity in the associations between pain extent and patient-reported outcome measures depending on the pain condition. This scoping review found that pain extent is associated with patient-reported outcome measures more so in patients presenting with musculoskeletal pain, e.g., neck pain or osteoarthritis, rather than for those with neuropathic pain or headache.

scholarly journals The Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used with Low Back Pain and the Attitude of Primary Healthcare Practitioners in Saudi Arabia toward Them

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (8) ◽  
pp. 812
Author(s):  
Ahmed Alhowimel ◽  
Faris Alodaibi ◽  
Mazyad Alotaibi ◽  
Dalyah Alamam ◽  
Julie Fritz
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Physical Therapists ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Knowledge And Beliefs ◽  
Patient Reported

Background and objectives: The use of appropriate outcome measures can help guide multidimensional low back pain (LBP) management, elucidate the efficacy/effectiveness of interventions, and inform clinicians when selected targets have been achieved and this can be used for educational or research purposes. Aim: This study aimed to explore and describe the use, attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs regarding patient-reported outcome measures used by healthcare practitioners practising in Saudi Arabia who are frequently involved in the healthcare of individuals with LBP. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional design was undertaken using a web-based survey. An electronic invitation to participate was sent to primary care physicians and physical therapists practising in Saudi Arabia. The survey included three sections: demographic data, a list of the most commonly used patient-reported outcome measures with LBP patients, and statements regarding attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs about outcome measures. Results: A total of 156 practitioners participated: 45 primary care physicians and 111 physical therapists. The numeric pain rating and visual analogue scales were the outcome measures most frequently reported as being often used by both primary care physicians and physical therapists. The majority of participants reported often using 1–2 patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). While most participants indicated that they were confident at selecting the most appropriate PROM, fewer were familiar with the concept of the minimally important clinical difference. A lack of Arabic versions of PROMs was reported as a barrier to using them to assess pain. Conclusions: This study shows that, although primary care physicians and physical therapists in Saudi Arabia frequently use patient-reported outcome measures in their clinical management of patients with LBP, there is a noticeable gap in the knowledge and use of the multidimensional outcome measures for LBP management among the participants. This highlights a need for professional training on the use of standardised outcome measures related to LBP.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document