Abstract
This chapter provides a brief introduction to patient-reported outcome measures (PROs), with an emphasis on measure characteristics and the implications for informatics of the use of PROs in clinical research. Because of increased appreciation on behalf of healthcare funders and regulatory agencies for actual patient experience, PROs have become recognized as legitimate and attractive endpoints for clinical studies and for comparative effectiveness research. “Patient-reported outcomes” is an internationally recognized umbrella term that includes both single dimension and multidimension measures of symptoms, with the defining characteristic that all information is provided directly by the patient. PROs can be administered in a variety of formats and settings, ranging from face-to-face interaction in clinics to web interfaces to mobile devices (e.g., smart phones). PRO instruments measure one or more aspects of patients’ health status and are especially important when more objective measures of disease outcome are not available. PROs can be used to measure a broad array of health status indicators within the context of widely varying study designs exploring a multitude of diseases. As a result, they need to be well characterized so that they can be identified and used appropriately. The standardization, indexing, access, and implementation of PROs are issues that are particularly relevant to clinical research informatics. In this chapter, we discuss design characteristics of PROs, measurement issues relating to the use of PROs, modes of administration, item and scale development, scale repositories, and item banking.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
FDA. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures; use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Silver Spring: U. S. D. o. H. a. H. Services; 2009.
McKenna P, Doward L. Integrating patient reported outcomes. Value Health. 2004;7:S9–12.
Garratt A. Patient reported outcome measures in trials. BMJ. 2009;338:a2597.
Wiklund I. Assessment of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials: the example of health-related quality of life. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2004;18:351–63.
Shields A, Gwaltney C, Tiplady B, et al. Grasping the FDA’s PRO guidance: what the agency requires to support the selection of patient reported outcome instruments. Appl Clin Trials. 2006;15:69–83.
Valderas J, Alonso J. Patient reported outcome measures: a model-based classification system for research and clinical practice. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:1125–35.
Skinner J, Teresi J, et al. Measurement in older ethnically diverse populations: overview of the volume. J Ment Health Aging. 2001;7:5–8.
Anastasi A. Psychological testing. 6th ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company; 1998.
Morgan R, Teal C, et al. Measurement in VA health services research: veterans as a special population. Health Serv Res. 2005;40:1573–83.
DeVellis R. Scale development: theory and applications. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2003.
Vogt W. Dictionary of statistics and methodology: a nontechnical guide for the social sciences. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1999.
Aday L, Cornelius L. Designing and conducting health surveys: a comprehensive guide. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2006.
McDowell I. Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
Bowling A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health. 2005;27:281–91.
Dillman D. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2000.
Coons S, Gwaltney C, et al. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12:419–29.
Cole E, Pisano ED, Clary GJ, Zeng D, Koomen M, Kuzmiak CM, Seo BK, Lee Y, Pavic D. A comparative study of mobile electronic data entry systems for clinical trials data collection. Int J Med Inform. 2006;75:722–9.
Collins R, Kashdan T, et al. The feasibility of using cellular phones to collect ecological momentary assessment data: application to alcohol consumption. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2003;11:73–8.
Freedman M, Lester K, et al. Cell phones for ecological momentary assessment with cocaine-addicted homeless patients in treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2006;30:105–11.
Reid S, Kauer S, et al. A mobile phone program to track young people’s experiences of mood, stress and coping. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2009;44(6):501–7.
Harniss M, Amtmann D, et al. Considerations for developing interfaces for collecting patient-reported outcomes that allow the inclusion of individuals with disabilities. Med Care. 2007;45:S48–54.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag London Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Morgan, R.O., Sail, K.R. (2012). Patient-Reported Outcome Data. In: Richesson, R., Andrews, J. (eds) Clinical Research Informatics. Health Informatics. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-448-5_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-448-5_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-84882-447-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-84882-448-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)