scholarly journals A descriptive analysis of clinical application of patient-reported outcome measures and screening tools for low back pain patients in US chiropractic teaching institutions

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse C. Cooper ◽  
Jordan A. Gliedt ◽  
Katherine A. Pohlman
Keyword(s):  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Clinical Use ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Psychosocial Influences ◽  
Teaching Clinics

Objective To describe the clinical use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and screening tools (STs) for low back pain (LBP) in clinics of chiropractic teaching institutions in the United States. Methods A descriptive analysis was completed with data collection achieved between June 2018 and March 2019. PROMs/STs were classified as disability/functional measures, pain measures, psychosocial measures, and other measures. Frequencies of use of PROM/ST instruments were calculated. Results Representatives from 18 of 19 chiropractic institutions (94.75%) provided a description of PROM/ST use for LBP in their teaching clinics. Seventeen institutions (94.4%) reported the routine clinical use of PROMs/STs for LBP. Disability/functional measures were the most common type of instruments used, followed by pain measures, psychosocial measures, and others. The 4 most common individual PROMs/STs reported were (1) Oswestry Disability Index, (2) a variation of a pain rating scale, (3) Keele STarT Back Tool, and (4) Patient Specific Functional Scale. Six out of 18 (33%) institutions reported the use of a PROM/ST specifically designed to focus on psychosocial influences. Conclusion Most chiropractic institution teaching clinics in the United States reported the clinical use of PROMs/STs for patients presenting with LBP. This mirrors trends in chiropractic literature of increasing use of PROMs/STs. A minority of institutions described the clinical use of a PROM/ST specifically designed to detect psychosocial influences.

scholarly journals Enabling patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials, exemplified by cardiovascular trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Theresa M. Coles ◽  
Adrian F. Hernandez ◽  
Bryce B. Reeve ◽  
Karon Cook ◽  
Michael C. Edwards ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Contextual Factors ◽  
The United States ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Evidentiary Standards

Abstract Objectives There has been limited success in achieving integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials. We describe how stakeholders envision a solution to this challenge. Methods Stakeholders from academia, industry, non-profits, insurers, clinicians, and the Food and Drug Administration convened at a Think Tank meeting funded by the Duke Clinical Research Institute to discuss the challenges of incorporating PROs into clinical trials and how to address those challenges. Using examples from cardiovascular trials, this article describes a potential path forward with a focus on applications in the United States. Results Think Tank members identified one key challenge: a common understanding of the level of evidence that is necessary to support patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in trials. Think Tank participants discussed the possibility of creating general evidentiary standards depending upon contextual factors, but such guidelines could not be feasibly developed because many contextual factors are at play. The attendees posited that a more informative approach to PROM evidentiary standards would be to develop validity arguments akin to courtroom briefs, which would emphasize a compelling rationale (interpretation/use argument) to support a PROM within a specific context. Participants envisioned a future in which validity arguments would be publicly available via a repository, which would be indexed by contextual factors, clinical populations, and types of claims. Conclusions A publicly available repository would help stakeholders better understand what a community believes constitutes compelling support for a specific PROM in a trial. Our proposed strategy is expected to facilitate the incorporation of PROMs into cardiovascular clinical trials and trials in general.

scholarly journals Perceptions of Patients, Caregivers, and Healthcare Providers of Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies: An International OMERACT Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher A. Mecoli ◽  
Jin Kyun Park ◽  
Helene Alexanderson ◽  
Malin Regardt ◽  
Merrilee Needham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies ◽  
Inflammatory Myopathies ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Initial List

Objective.Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) that incorporate the patient perspective have not been well established in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM). As part of our goal to develop IIM-specific PROM, the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Myositis special interest group sought to determine which aspects of disease and its effects are important to patients and healthcare providers (HCP).Methods.Based on a prior qualitative content analysis of focus groups, an initial list of 24 candidate domains was constructed. We subsequently conducted an international survey to identify the importance of each of the 24 domains to be assessed in clinical research. Patients with IIM, their caregivers, and HCP treating IIM completed the survey.Results.In this survey, a total of 638 respondents completed the survey, consisting of 510 patients, 101 HCP, and 27 caregivers from 48 countries. Overall, patients were more likely to rank “fatigue,” “cognitive impact,” and “difficulty sleeping” higher compared with HCP, who ranked “joint symptoms,” “lung symptoms,” and “dysphagia” higher. Both patients and providers rated muscle symptoms as their top domain. In general, patients from different countries were in agreement on which domains were most important. One notable exception was that patients from Sweden and the Netherlands ranked lung symptoms significantly higher compared to other countries including the United States and Australia (mean weighted rankings of 2.86 and 2.04 vs 0.76 and 0.80, respectively; p < 0.0001).Conclusion.Substantial differences exist in how IIM is perceived by patients compared to HCP, with different domains prioritized. In contrast, patients’ ratings across the world were largely similar.

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 Evaluating cancer patient–reported outcome measures: Readability and implications for clinical use

Cancer ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 125 (8) ◽  
pp. 1350-1356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet K. Papadakos ◽  
Rebecca C. Charow ◽  
Christine J. Papadakos ◽  
Lesley J. Moody ◽  
Meredith E. Giuliani
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patient ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Clinical Use ◽  
Patient Reported
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document