Quality of Life Research

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 1505–1513 | Cite as

Framework to assess the effects of using patient-reported outcome measures in chronic care management

  • Maria-Jose SantanaEmail author
  • David Feeny



The inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the routine clinical care of chronically ill patients has the potential to add valuable information about the impact of the disease and its treatment and promotes effective patient self-management in which patients become more active participants in their own care. PROMs provide clinicians with timely information on patients’ symptoms as well as functional and emotional status. PROMs are a useful tool for enhancing patient–clinician communication.


We develop a conceptual framework describing the potential effects of the use of PROMs in chronic care management. The framework summarizes insights from the methods for evaluating the clinical effectiveness and methods for the health technology assessment of diagnostic technologies and results from the relevant studies.


The framework describes potential effects, from proximal to distal, including communication (patient–clinician, patient–relative, clinician–clinician, and clinician–relative), engaging patients in shared clinical decision making, patient management (clinician management and patient self-management), and patient outcomes. Important potential effects also include enhancement in patient activation as well as improvements in clinician and patient satisfaction, and patient adherence to recommended treatment. Previous frameworks have described patient–physician communication, patient satisfaction, and health outcomes. Our framework adds unique domains, including patient engagement, patient activation, shared clinical decision making, and patient self-management.


The framework can be used as a tool to guide the development of interventions to improve chronic care management through the use of PROMs.


Patient-reported measures Chronic care management Patient–clinician communication Patient engagement Patient self-management Share decision making Patient outcomes 



The authors would like to thank the valuable contributions from three anonymous reviewers.


  1. 1.
    Global status report on noncommunicable diseases (2010). (last visited November 18, 2013).
  2. 2.
    Schneider, K. M., O’Donnell, B. E., & Dean, D. (2009). Prevalence of chronic conditions in the United States Medicare population. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 82.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yach, D., Hawkes, C., & Hofman, K. J. (2004). The global burden of chronic diseases: Overcoming impediments to prevention and control. Journal American medical Association, 21(291), 2616–2622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parekh, A. K., Goodman, R. A., Gordon, K., Koh, H. K., & the HHS interagency workgroup on multiple chronic conditions. (2011). Managing multiple chronic conditions: A strategic framework for improving health outcomes and quality of life. Public Health Reports, 126, 460–470.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wagner, E. H., Austin, B. T., & von Korff, M. (1996). Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. The Milbank Quarterly, 74(4), 511–544.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barr, V. J., Robinson, S., Marin-link, B., Underhill, L., Dotts, A., Ravensdale, D., et al. (2003). The expanded chronic care model: An integration of concepts and strategies from population health promotion and the chronic care model. Hospital Quarterly, 7(1), 73–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tinetti, M. E., Fried, T. R., & Boyd, C. M. (2012). Designing health care for the most common chronic condition—Multimorbidity. Journal of the American Medical Association, 307(23), 2493–2494.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wolff, J. L., Starfield, B., & Anderson, G. (2002). Prevalence, expenditures, and complications of multiple chronic conditions in the elderly. Archives of Internal Medicine, 162(20), 2269–2276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deyo, R. A., & Patrick, D. L. (1989). Barriers to the use of health status measures in clinical investigation, patient care, and policy research. Medical Care, 27(3), S254–S268.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fayers, P. M., & Machain, D. (2000). Quality of life: Assessment, analysis and Interpretation. Chapter 10. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wu, A. (1996) The role of quality assessments in medical practice. Bert Spilker, (Ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morris, J., Perez, D., & McNoe, B. (1998). The use of quality of life data in clinical practice. Quality of Life Research, 7(1), 85–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Osoba, D. (1999). What has been learned from measuring health-related quality of life in clinical oncology. European Journal of Cancer, 35(11), 1565–1570.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taenzer, P., Buktz, B. D., Carkson, L. E., Speca, M., DeGagne, T., et al. (2000). Impact of computerized quality of life screening on physician behavior and patient satisfaction in lung cancer outpatients. Psycho-Oncology, 9(3), 203–213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A., Brown, P., Lynch, P., Brown, J. M., et al. (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: A randomized controlled trial. Journal Clinical Oncology, 22(4), 714–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Santana, M. J., Feeny, D., Johnson, J. A., McAlister, F. A., Kim, D., Weinkauf, J., et al. (2010). An assessment of the effects of the use of measures of health-related quality of life in routine clinical care: An application to lung transplantation. Quality of Life Research, 19(3), 371–379.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lyndon, G. M., Dowrick, C. F., McBride, A., Burgess, H. J., Howe, A. C., Clarke, P. D., et al. (2011). Questionnaire severity measure of depression: A threat to the doctor-patient relationship? British Journal of General Practice, 61(583), 117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dowrick, C., Leydon, G. M., McBride, A., Howe, A., Burgess, H., Clarke, P., et al. (2009). Patients’ and doctors’ views on depression severity questionnaires incentivised in UK quality and outcomes framework: Qualitative study. British Medical Journal, 338, b663.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Greenhalgh, J., & Meadows, K. (1999). 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. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 5, 401–416.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Espallargues, M., Valderas, J. M., & Alonso, J. (2000). Provision of feedback on perceived health status to health care professionals: A systematic review of its impact. Medical Care, 38, 175–186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Detmar, S. B., Muller, M. J., Schornagel, J. H., Wever, L. D., & Aaronson, N. K. (2002). Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient–physician communication: A randomized controlled trial. Journal American Medical Association, 288(23), 3027–3034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Greenhalgh, J., Long, A. F., & Flynn, R. (2005). The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical care: Lack of impact or lack of theory? Social Science and Medicine, 60, 833–843.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haywood, K., Marshall, S., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2006). Patient participation in the consultation process: A structured review of intervention strategies. Patient Education Counselling, 63(1–2), 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marshall, S., Haywood, K., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2006). Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: A structured review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 12, 559–568.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Valderas, J. M., Kotzeva, A., Espallargues, M., et al. (2008). The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: A systematic review of the literature. Quality of Life Research, 17, 179–193.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Greenhalgh, J. (2009). The applications of PROs in clinical practice: What are they, do they work and why? Quality of Life Research, 18, 115–123.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rosenbloom, S. K., Victorson, D. E., Hanh, E. A., Peterman, A. H., & Cella, D. (2007). Assessment is not enough: A randomized controlled trial of the effects of health-related quality of life assessment on quality of life and satisfaction in oncology clinical practice. Psychooncology, 16, 1069–1079.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gutteling, J. J., Darlington, A. S., Janssen, H. L., Duivenvoorden, H. J., Busschbach, J. J., & de Man, R. A. (2008). Effectiveness of health-related quality of life measurement in clinical practice: A prospective, randomized controlled trial in patients with chronic liver disease and their physicians. Quality of Life Research, 17, 195–205.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    de Wit, M., Delemarre-van de Waal, H. A., Bokma, J. A., Haasnoot, K., Houdijk, M., Gemke, R. J., et al. (2008). Monitoring and discussing health related quality of life in adolescent with type 1 diabetes improve psychosocial well-being. Diabetes Care, 31(8), 1521–1526.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hilarius, D. L., Kloeg, P. H., Gundy, C. M., & Aaroson, N. K. (2008). Use of health-related quality of life assessments in daily clinical oncology nursing practice: A community hospital-based intervention study. Cancer, 113(3), 628–637.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Boyce, M.B., Browne, J.P. (2013). Does providing feedback on patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals result in better outcomes for patients? A systematic review. Quality of Life Research. [ePub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Snyder, C. F., Aaronson, N. K., Choucair, A. K., Elliott, T. E., Greenhalgh, J., Halyard, M. Y., et al. (2011). Implementing patient-reported outcome assessment in clinical practice: A review of the options and considerations. Quality of Life Research,. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-0054.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Aaronson, N.K., Choucair, A.K., Elliott, T.E., Greenhalgh, J., Halyard, M.Y., Hess, R., Miller, D.M., Reeve, B.B., Santana, M.J., Snyder, C.F. (2011). User’s guide to implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice. (last access March 2, 2013).
  34. 34.
    Roter, D. L., & Hall, J. A. (2006). Doctors talking with patients/patients talking to doctors. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Roter, D. L. The enduring and evolving nature of the patient-physician relationship. Patient Education Counselling, 39, 5–15.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Street, R. L, Jr, Makoul, G., Arora, N. K., & Epstein, R. M. (2009). How does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician–patient communication to health outcomes. Patient Education and Counselling, 74, 295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Levinson, W., Lesser, C. S., & Epstein, R. M. (2010). Developing physician communication skills for patient-centered care. Health Affairs, 29(7), 1310–1318.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Feldman-Stewart, D., Brundage, M. D., & Tishelman, C. (2005). A conceptual framework for patient-professional communication: An application to the cancer context. Psycho-oncology, 14, 801–809.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Feldman-Stewart, D., & Brundage, M. D. (2009). A conceptual framework for patient-provider communication: A tool in the PRO research tool box. Quality of Life Research, 18, 109–114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gerrity, P. (2010). And to think that it happened on 11th street: A nursing approach to community-based holistic care and health care reform. Alternative Therapies, 6(5), 62–67.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Takeuchi, E. E., Keding, A., Awad, N., Hofmann, U., Campbell, L. J., Selby, P. J., et al. (2011). Impact of patient-reported outcomes in oncology: A longitudinal analysis of patient–physician communication. Journal Clinical Oncology, 29(21), 2910–2917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Epstein, R. M., & Street, R. L, Jr. (2007). Patient-centered communication in cancer care: Promoting healing and reducing suffering. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. (NIH Publication No 07-6225).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Greenhalgh, J., Abhyankar, P., McCluskey, S., Takeuchi, E., & Velikova, G. (2013). How do doctors refer to patient-reported outcome measures in oncology consultations? Quality of Life Research, 22, 939–950.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bodenheimer, T., Loring, K., Holman, H., & Grumbach, K. (2002). Patient self-management of chronic disease in primary care. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(19), 2469–2475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    McGreevey, M. (2006). Patient as partners: How to involve patient and families in Their Own Care. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hibbard, H. J., Stockard, J., Mahoney, E. R., & Tusler, M. (2004). Development of the patient activation measure (PAM): Conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Services Research, 39, 4, Part I.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Chow, A., Mayer, E. K., Darzi, A. W., & Athanasiou, T. (2009). Patient-reported outcome measures: The importance of patient satisfaction in surgery. Journal of Surgery, 146(3), 435–443.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hibbard, J. H., Mahoney, E. R., Stock, R., & Tusler, M. (2007). Self-management and health care utilization. Do increases in patient-activation result in improved self-management behaviours. Health Research Services, 42(4), 1443–1462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wu, A. W., & Ka, Cagney. (1997). Health status assessment, completing the clinical database. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 12, 254–256.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Remmers, C., Hibbard, J., Mosen, D. M., Wagenfield, M., Hoye, R. E., & Jones, C. (2009). Is patient activation associated with future health outcomes and healthcare utilization among patients with diabetes? Journal Ambulatory care management, 32(4), 320–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Korda, H. Patient Satisfaction: The new rules of engagement. The Health Care Blog. (last access August 26, 2013).
  52. 52.
    Loring, K. R., Sobel, D. S., Ritter, P. L., Laurent, D., & Hobbs, M. (2001). Effects of the self-management program on patient with chronic disease. Effective Clinical Practice, 4(6), 256–262.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Clark, N. M., Becker, M. H., Janz, N. K., Loring, K., Rakowski, W., & Anderson, L. (1991). Self-management of chronic disease by older adults: A review and questions for research. Journal of Aging Health, 3, 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Marshall, S. S., Haywood, K. L., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2005). Patient involvement and collaboration in shared decision-making: A structure review to inform chronic disease management. Report from the patient-reported health instruments group to the Department of Health.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Barry, M. J., & Edgman-Levitan, S. (2012). Shared decision making—The pinnacle of patient-centered care. New England Journal of Medicine, 366(9), 780–781.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Frosch, D. L., & Kaplan, R. M. (1999). Shared decision making in clinical medicine: Past research and future directions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 17(4), 285–294.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Santana, M. J., Feeny, D., Weinkauf, J., Nador, R., Jackson, K., et al. (2010). The use of patient-reported outcomes becomes standard practice in the routine clinical care of lung–heart transplant patients. Patient Related Outcome Measures, 1, 93–105.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Santana, M. J., Feeny, D., Ghosh, S., & Lien, D. C. (2012). Patient-reported outcome 2 years after lung transplantation: Does the underlying diagnosis matter? Patient Related Outcome Measures, 3, 79–84.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hudak, P. L., & Wright, J. G. (2000). The characteristics of patient satisfaction measures. Spine, 25(24), 3167–3177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Roter, D., & Frankel, R. (1992). Quantitative and qualitative approaches to the evaluation of the medical dialogue. Social Sciences and Medicine, 34(10), 1097–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Rivkin, M. O., & Bush, P. J. (1974). The satisfaction continuum in health care: Consumer and provider preferences. In S. J. Mushkin (Ed.), Consumer incentives for health care. New York: Prodist.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Guyatt, G. H., Tugwell, P. X., Feeny, D. H., Haynes, R. B., & Drummond, M. (1986). A framework for clinical evaluation of diagnostic technologies. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 134, 587–594.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Banta, H. D., & Behney, C. J. (1981). Policy formulation and technology assessment. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 59, 445–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Olsen, L. A., Aisner, D., & McGinnis, J. The learning healthcare system: Workshop summary (IOM Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine). Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine. (last access December 3, 2013).
  65. 65.
    Abernethy, A. P., Ahmad, A., Zafar, S. Y., Wheeler, J. L., Reese, J. B., & Lyerly, H. K. (2010). Electronic patient-reported data capture as a foundation of rapid learning cancer care. Medical Care, 48(6), S32–S38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Feeny, D. (2013). Health-related quality of life data should be regarded as a vital sign. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.12.013.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.W21C Research and Innovation Centre, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Lung Transplant Program, University of Alberta HospitalUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  3. 3.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations