Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

PROMs and Quality of Care

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Rheumatic Diseases

  • 869 Accesses

Abstract

The impairment of patient’s health is the major driver of healthcare and healthcare research. For many years, the pathophysiological understanding of disease was considered the holy grail of medicine. However, increasingly, the central role of patients is being recognized in current times. Health professionals should treat their patients and not limit their attention to the patient’s disease. Since the patient’s perspective on their disease can only be given by the patient him/herself, this paradigm shift has led to the proliferation and adoption of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) throughout all levels of healthcare. In this chapter we will first introduce a conceptual framework for PROs, according to the World Health Organization definition of health. It will demonstrate how PROs can be and have been developed to assess areas of human functioning across a continuum of social complexity ranging from simple, unidimensional measures of symptoms to complex, integrated domains of social functioning. Generic PROs may intend to provide information that can be used to compare health status between populations. Alternatively, PROs may have a particular focus on specific populations, diseases, or functions. These instruments are called specific instruments. The applications and advantages of specific and generic instruments will be discussed in detail in this chapter. Although the primary application of PROs in rheumatology was traditionally applied as primary or secondary endpoints in clinical trials, they are increasingly used in other measurement settings as well. The chapter includes a description of these developments and the requirements they imply for PROs in detail. Finally the psychometric models that are frequently utilized in the development and evaluation of PROs will be discussed, with particular attention for the modern, item response theory-based approach and how it can be utilized to address difficult-to-resolve measurement-related issues related to the interpretability and reliability of PROs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration. 2006. http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/98fr/06d-0044-gdl0001.pdf.

  2. van Tuyl LHD, Boers M. Patient-reported outcomes in core domain sets for rheumatic diseases. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2015;11:705–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A, Fitzpatrick R. Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ. 2002;324:1417.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Wolfe F, Pincus T. Listening to the patient: a practical guide to self-report questionnaires in clinical care. Arthritis Rheum. 1999;42:1797–808.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA. 1995;273:59–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. World Health Organization (WHO). International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps: a manual of classification relating to the consequences of disease, published in accordance. 1980. http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/41003.

  7. World Health Organization (WHO). World health organization constitution. Basic Doc 1948. http://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf.

  8. Boonen A, Stucki G, Maksymowych W, Rat AC, Escorpizo R, Boers M. The OMERACT-ICF reference group: integrating the ICF into the OMERACT process: opportunities and challenges. J Rheumatol. 2009;36:2057–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Stucki G, Cieza A. The international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) core sets for rheumatoid arthritis: a way to specify functioning. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63 Suppl 2:ii40–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. ten Klooster PM, Veehof MM, Taal E, van Riel PLCM, van de Laar MAFJ. Changes in priorities for improvement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis during 1 year of anti-tumour necrosis factor treatment. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66:1485–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Bartlett SJ, Bykerk VP, Cooksey R, Choy EH, Alten R, Christensen R, et al. Feasibility and domain validation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) flare core domain set: report of the OMERACT 2014 RA flare group plenary. J Rheumatol. 2015;42(11):2185–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Gignac MAM, Backman CL, Davis AM, Lacaille D, Mattison CA, Montie P, et al. Understanding social role participation: what matters to people with arthritis? J Rheumatol. 2008;35:1655–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PD, Essink-Bot ML, Fekkes M, Sanderman R, et al. Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 health survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1055–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Vermeer M, Kuper HH, Hoekstra M, Haagsma CJ, Posthumus MD, Brus HLM, et al. Implementation of a treat-to-target strategy in very early rheumatoid arthritis: results of the Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring remission induction cohort study. Arthritis Rheum. 2011;63:2865–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:622–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care. 1989;27:S217–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Linde L, Sørensen J, Ostergaard M, Hørslev-Petersen K, Hetland ML. Health-related quality of life: validity, reliability, and responsiveness of SF-36, 15D, EQ-5D [corrected] RAQoL, and HAQ in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2008;35:1528–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hagen KB, Smedstad LM, Uhlig T, Kvien TK. The responsiveness of health status measures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: comparison of disease-specific and generic instruments. J Rheumatol. 1999;26:1474–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Russell AS, Conner-Spady B, Mintz A, Maksymowych WP. The responsiveness of generic health status measures as assessed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving infliximab. J Rheumatol. 2003;30:941–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Buchbinder R, Bombardier C, Yeung M, Tugwell P. Which outcome measures should be used in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials? Clinical and quality-of-life measures’ responsiveness to treatment in a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 1995;38:1568–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Verhoeven AC, Boers M, van Der Linden S. Responsiveness of the core set, response criteria, and utilities in early rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2000;59:966–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Colwell HH, Hunt BJ, Pasta DJ, Palo WA, Mathias SD, Joseph-Ridge N. Gout assessment questionnaire: Initial results of reliability, validity and responsiveness. Int J Clin Pract. 2006;60:1210–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Meenan RF, Gertman PM, Mason JH. Measuring health status in arthritis. The arthritis impact measurement scales. Arthritis Rheum. 1980;23:146–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, Holman HR. Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1980;23:137–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Calvert M, Blazeby J, Altman DG, Revicki DA, Moher D, Brundage MD. Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA. 2013;309:814–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kalyoncu U, Dougados M, Daures J-P, Gossec L. Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in recent trials in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68:183–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Schumacher HR, Taylor W, Edwards L, Grainger R, Schlesinger N, Dalbeth N, et al. Outcome domains for studies of acute and chronic gout. J Rheumatol. 2009;36:2342–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Boers M, Brooks P, Strand CV, Tugwell P. The OMERACT filter for outcome measures in rheumatology. J Rheumatol. 1998;25:198–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Goossens ME, Rutten-van Mölken MP, Vlaeyen JW, van der Linden SM. The cost diary: a method to measure direct and indirect costs in cost-effectiveness research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:688–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Braakman-Jansen LMA, Taal E, Kuper IH, van de Laar MAFJ. Productivity loss due to absenteeism and presenteeism by different instruments in patients with RA and subjects without RA. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2012;51:354–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Basch E, Reeve BB, Mitchell SA, Clauser SB, Minasian LM, Dueck AC, et al. Development of the National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;29:106(9).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Pincus T, Yazici Y, Sokka T. Quantitative measures of rheumatic diseases for clinical research versus standard clinical care: differences, advantages and limitations. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2007;21:601–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Greenhalgh J. The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why? Qual Life Res. 2009;18:115–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hilarius D. Patient-reported outcomes in daily clinical oncology practice: a tool for patient monitoring and quality of care assessment. FMG: Psychology Research Institute. 2011. http://dare.uva.nl/document/2/91414.

  35. Greenhalgh J, Meadows K. The effectiveness of the use of patient-based measures of health in routine practice in improving the process and outcomes of patient care: a literature review. J Eval Clin Pract. 1999;5:401–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW. The patient health questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener. Med Care. 2003;41:1284–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ahmed S, Berzon RA, Revicki DA, Lenderking WR, Moinpour CM, Basch E, et al. The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: implications for clinical practice and health care policy. Med Care. 2012;50:1060–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Valderas JM, Kotzeva A, Espallargues M, Guyatt G, Ferrans CE, Halyard MY, et al. The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:179–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Pincus T, Summey JA, Soraci SA, Wallston KA, Hummon NP. Assessment of patient satisfaction in activities of daily living using a modified Stanford health assessment questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum. 1983;26:1346–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Porter M, Teisberg EO. Redefining health care: creating value-based competition on results. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  41. DeVellis R. Scale development: theory and applications. Newbury Park: Sage; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, Caraceni A, Hanks GW, Loge JH, et al. Studies comparing numerical rating scales, verbal rating scales, and visual analogue scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011;41:1073–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Bollen K, Lennox R. Conventional wisdom on measurement: a structural equation perspective. Psychol Bull. 1991;110(2):305–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Garrett S, Jenkinson T, Kennedy LG, Whitelock H, Gaisford P, Calin A. A new approach to defining disease status in ankylosing spondylitis: the bath ankylosing spondylitis disease activity index. J Rheumatol. 1994;21:2286–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Feinstein AR. An additional basic science for clinical medicine: IV. The development of clinimetrics. Ann Intern Med. 1983;99:843–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hambleton R, Van der Linden W. Advances in item response theory and applications: an introduction. Appl Psychol Meas. 1982;6(4):373–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lord FM. Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Brennan RL. Generalizability theory. Educ Meas Issues Pract. 1992;11(4):27–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Rupp A, Zumbo B. Understanding parameter invariance in unidimensional IRT models. Educ Psychol. 2006;66(1):63–84.

    Google Scholar 

  51. van der Linden W, Glas CAW. Computerized adaptive testing: theory and practice. Boston: Springer; 2000.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Health & Technology, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, Enschede, 7522 NB, The Netherlands

    Martijn A. H. Oude Voshaar

  2. Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, University of Twente, Ariensplein 1, Cubicus, Room B125, Enschede, 7500 KA, The Netherlands

    Mart A. F. J. van de Laar

Authors
  1. Martijn A. H. Oude Voshaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mart A. F. J. van de Laar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martijn A. H. Oude Voshaar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Honorary Senior Clinical Lecturer, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom

    Yasser El Miedany

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Voshaar, M.A.H.O., van de Laar, M.A.F.J. (2016). PROMs and Quality of Care. In: El Miedany, Y. (eds) Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Rheumatic Diseases. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32851-5_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32851-5_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32849-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32851-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation