Can the Routine Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Improve the Delivery of Person-Centered Diabetes Care? A Review of Recent Developments and a Case Study
Purpose of Review
In recent years, the recommendation for and use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine diabetes care has significantly increased. We review recent evidence and highlight key opportunities and challenges related to the active clinical use of PROMs to support person-centered diabetes care and focus areas for future research in the area.
Recent pragmatic studies support that integration of multi-dimensional PROMs for diabetes in clinical care as part of a care improvement strategy can be acceptable for and valued by people with diabetes (PWD) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) and may improve multiple aspects of quality of care, including screening, medical care monitoring and decision support, individualization of self-management support and goal-setting, and broader benefits related to active patient participation and person-centred diabetes care. We identify multiple intervention, individual, and care setting characteristics, which influence acceptability, feasibility, implementation, and effectiveness of PROMs in routine care. Recent clinical PROM studies highlight the value of mixed methods research and systematic involvement of PWD, clinicians, and other stakeholders in the design and implementation of questionnaires for patient input in routine diabetes care.
We identified a new significant trend towards participatory development of multi-dimensional PROMs with the aim of IT-enabled integration into routine diabetes care to facilitate multiple components of person-centered diabetes care and better clinical, quality of life, and cost outcomes. While results from large-scale randomized controlled studies are still limited, a growing number of pragmatic implementation studies support that user-centric PROM interventions have the potential to facilitate significant improvements in care for PWD.
KeywordsPatient-reported outcomes Person-centered diabetes care Health-related quality of life Psychosocial diabetes care Collaborative diabetes care Value-based healthcare
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any intervention studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors. Qualitative research involving people with diabetes and caregivers was undertaken by Soren E. Skovlund for this study. All participants in this research gave informed written consent and study protocol was conducted according to local and national scientific regulations.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 1.• Svedbo Engström M, Leksell J, Johansson UB, Eeg-Olofsson K, Borg S, Palaszewski B, et al. A disease-specific questionnaire for measuring patient-reported outcomes and experiences in the Swedish National Diabetes Register: development and evaluation of content validity, face validity, and test-retest reliability. Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101:139–46. Comprehensive methodological development of a new multi-dimensional PRO diabetes questionnaire intended for use to measure diabetes-related quality of life in routine care.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.• Dickinson WP, Dickinson LM, Jortberg BT, Hessler DM, Fernald DH, Fisher L. A protocol for a cluster randomized trial comparing strategies for translating self-management support into primary care practices. BMC Fam Pract. 2018;19:1–10. Comprehensive methodology for large-scale multi-arm implementation study on PROMs in routine care for people with type 2 diabetes in diverse primary care settings.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Davies MJ, D’Alessio DA, Fradkin J, Kernan WN, Mathieu C, Mingrone G, et al. Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetologia. 2018;61:2461–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Griggs CL, Schneider JC, Kazis LE, Ryan CM. Patient-reported outcome measures. Med Care. 2017;56:265:1066–7.Google Scholar
- 8.•• Young-Hyman D, De Groot M, Hill-Briggs F, Gonzalez JS, Hood K, Peyrot M. Psychosocial care for people with diabetes: a position statement of the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2016:39, 2126–2140. Describes the ADA guideline recommendations for psychosocial care in diabetes, including consideration of use of psychological screening questionnaires in diabetes care.Google Scholar
- 9.International Diabetes Federation - Home. Global guidelines for type 2 diabetes. 2012 [cited 2019 Jan 23]. Available from: https://www.idf.org/e-library/guidelines/79-global-guideline-for-type-2-diabetes.html
- 10.International Diabetes Federation. Recommendations for managing Type 2 Diabetes in Primary Care. http://www.idf.org/managing-type2-diabetes. Accesed 4 Jun 2019.
- 14.• Marrero DG, Hilliard ME, Maahs DM, AH MA-F, Hunter CM. Using patient reported outcomes in diabetes research and practice: recommendations from a national workshop. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019;153:23–9 [cited 2019 Jun 7]. Provides a report from a recent multi-stakeholder expert meeting on future research priorities for advancement of use of PRO in diabetes research and care. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.• International Consortium for Health Outcomes Research (ICHOM) ICHOM standard set for adults with diabetes. Type 1 and type 2 in adults. Data collection and reference guide 2018: International Consortium for Health Outcomes Management - Home; 2019. [cited 2019 Jan 23]. Available from: https://www.ichom.org/portfolio/diabetes/. Accessed 11 Jul 2019. Defines PROM measures as part of global diabetes standard outcomes set for outcomes monitoring (WHO-5, PAID, and PHQ-9).
- 20.• d’Emden H, McDermott B, Poulson K, McGahan G. Protocol for psychosocial screening of adolescents and young adults with chronic illness. Intern Med J. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.14211. Provides a detailed concrete case example of development of a brief psychosocial screening tool designed for routine use with young adults with type 1 diabetes.
- 22.Grimaldi A, Penfornis A, Consoli S, Falissard B, Eymard E, Williams P, et al. Breaking barriers to effective type 2 diabetes management: findings from the use of the OPTIMA©Questionnaire in clinical practice. Adv Ther. 2016;33:1033–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-016-0341-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 23.Powell P, Corathers S, Raymond J, Streisand R. New approaches to providing individualized diabetes care in the 21st century. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2015;11:222–30 Available from: http://www.eurekaselect.com/openurl/content.php?genre=article&issn=1573-3998&volume=11&issue=4&spage=222.
- 24.Bingham CO, Noonan VK, Auger C, Feldman DE, Ahmed S, Bartlett SJ. Montreal accord on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) use series—paper 4: patient-reported outcomes can inform clinical decision making in chronic care. J Clin Epidemiol Elsevier Inc. 2017;89:136–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Shortell SM, Poon BY, Ramsay PP, Rodriguez HP, Ivey SL, Huber T, et al. A multilevel analysis of patient engagement and patient-reported outcomes in primary care practices of accountable care organizations. J Gen Intern Med. 2017; [cited 2019 Mar 25];32:640–7. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11606-016-3980-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.• Ishaque S, Karnon J, Chen G, Nair R, Salter AB. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Qual Life Res. 2019;28:567–92 Springer International Publishing [cited 2019 Mar 25]. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11136-018-2016-z.Provides a first systematic review of the effectiveness of PROM interventions across disease areas on facilitating care with focus on patient value and preferences. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Svedbo Engstrom M, Leksell J, Johansson U-B, Gudbjornsdottir S. What is important for you? A qualitative interview study of living with diabetes and experiences of diabetes care to establish a basis for a tailored patient-reported outcome measure for the Swedish National Diabetes Register. BMJ Open. England. 2016;6:e010249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Eton D, Elraiyah TA, Yost K, Ridgeway J, Johnson A, Egginton J, et al. A systematic review of patient-reported measures of burden of treatment in three chronic diseases. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2013; Dove Press [cited 2019 Mar 20];4:7. Available from: http://www.dovepress.com/a-systematic-review-of-patient-reported-measures-of-burden-of-treatmen-peer-reviewed-article-PROM.
- 33.Skovlund SE, Troelsen L, Dømgaard M, Jakobsen PEO, Ejskjaer N. Development of a national minimal set of patient-important outcome domains for value-based diabetes care in Denmark. Diabetes. 2018, 67 American Diabetes Association Available from: http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/67/Supplement_1/135-LB.
- 38.• Scholle SH, Morton S, Homco J, Rodriguez K, Anderson D, Hahn E, et al. Implementation of the PROMIS-29 in routine care for people with diabetes. 2018;41:274–87. Provides qualitative evaluation of barriers, facilitators, and impacts of use of a generic PROM for PWD in primary practice. Google Scholar
- 40.Estabrooks PA, Boyle M, Emmons KM, Glasgow RE, Hesse BW, Kaplan RM, et al. Harmonized patient-reported data elements in the electronic health record: supporting meaningful use by primary care action on health behaviors and key psychosocial factors. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19:575–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.Speight J, Conn J, Dunning T, Skinner TC. Diabetes Australia position statement. A new language for diabetes: improving communications with and about people with diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 2012;97:425–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2012.03.015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 42.Peyrot M, Burns KK, Davies M, Forbes A, Hermanns N, Holt R, et al. Diabetes Attitudes Wishes and Needs 2 (DAWN2): a multinational, multi-stakeholder study of psychosocial issues in diabetes and person-centred diabetes care. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2013;99:174–84 Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168822712004809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 44.Nanayakkara N, Pease A, Ranasinha S, Wischer N, Andrikopoulos S, Speight J, et al. Depression and diabetes distress in adults with type 2 diabetes: results from the Australian National Diabetes Audit (ANDA) 2016. Sci Rep. 2018;8:7846 [cited 2019 Mar 23] Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-26138-5.
- 45.• Nicolucci A, Kovacs Burns K, Holt RIG, Comaschi M, Hermanns N, Ishii H, et al. Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs second study (DAWN2™): cross-national benchmarking of diabetes-related psychosocial outcomes for people with diabetes. Diabet Med. 2013;30:767–77 Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/dme.12245. Presents multi-national data on an international set of pragmatic PROM indicators for person-centered diabetes care. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 47.Snoek FJ. Monitoring of individual needs in diabetes (MIND)-2: follow-up data from the cross-national Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes, and Needs (DAWN) MIND study. 2012;35:2128–32.Google Scholar
- 49.Bajracharya P, Summers L, Amatya AK, DeBlieck C. Implementation of a depression screening protocol and tools to improve screening for depression in patients with diabetes in the primary care setting. J Nurse Pract. Elsevier, Inc. 2016;12:690–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nurpra.2016.08.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 50.Pouwer F, Snoek FJ, van der Ploeg HM, Adèr HJ, Heine RJ. Monitoring of psychological well-being in outpatients with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:1929–35 American Diabetes Association Available from: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/24/11/1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 51.De Wit M, de Waal HA, Bokma JA, Haasnoot K, Houdijk MC, Gemke RJ, et al. Follow-up results on monitoring and discussing health-related quality of life in adolescent diabetes care: benefits do not sustain in routine practice. Pediatr Diabetes. 2010;11:175–81 Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1399-5448.2009.00543.x.Google Scholar
- 59.• Santana MJ, Haverman L, Absolom K, Takeuchi E, Feeny D, Grootenhuis M, et al. Training clinicians in how to use patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:1707–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0903-5. Provides a framework for the evaluation of potential impacts of implementation of PROMs in chronic healthcare.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 60.Roberts NJ, Kidd L, Dougall N, Patel IS, McNarry S, Nixon C. Measuring patient activation: the utility of the patient activation measure within a UK context—results from four exemplar studies and potential future applications. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99:1739–46 Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738399116301938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 61.•• Corathers SD, Mara CA, Chundi PK, Kichler JC. Psychosocial patient-reported outcomes in pediatric and adolescent diabetes: a review and case example. Curr Diab Rep Current Diabetes Rep. 2017;17. Provides insights into a concrete model for multi-dimensional PRO assessment in routine pediatric diabetes care and utilization of PRO data also at group level. Google Scholar
- 62.Rogers E, Yost K, Rosedahl J, Linzer M, Boehm D, Thakur A, et al. Validating the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-Management (PETS), a patient-reported measure of treatment burden, in people with diabetes. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2017;8:143–56 Available from: https://www.dovepress.com/validating-the-patient-experience-with-treatment-and-self-management-p-peer-reviewed-article-PROM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 68.Frost MH, Bonomi AA, Cappelleri JC, Schünemann H, Moynihan TJ, et al. Applying quality-of-life data formally and systematically into clinical practice. 2003;25:D10.Google Scholar
- 69.Deane K, Delbecque L,Gorbenko O,HamoirAM, Hoos A, Nafria B, et al. Co-creation of patient engagement quality guidance for medicines development: an international multistakeholder initia-1073 tive. BMJ Innov. 2019;bmjinnov-2018–000317. Available from: https://innovations.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjinnov-2018-10750003177
- 70.Eilander M, de Wit M, Rotteveel J, Maas-van Schaaijk N, Roeleveld-Versteegh A, Snoek F. Implementation of quality of life monitoring in Dutch routine care of adolescents with type 1 diabetes: appreciated but difficult. Pediatr Diabetes. 2016 Mar;17(2):112-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/pedi.12237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 73.Rodriguez HP, Glenn BA, Olmos TT, Krist AH, Shimada SL, Kessler R, et al. Real-world implementation and outcomes of health behavior and mental health assessment. J Am Board Fam Med. 2014;27:356–66 [cited 2019 Mar 25] Available from: http://www.jabfm.org/cgi/doi/10.3122/jabfm.2014.03.130264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 79.Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK, Apolone G, Bjorner JB, Brazier JE, et al. Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 health survey in nine countries. 1998;51:1171–8.Google Scholar
- 80.Skevington SM, Lotfy M, O’Connell KA. The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL Group. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:299–310. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000018486.91360.00.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 83.Roth AJ. Rapid screening for psychologic distress in men with prostate carcinoma: a pilot study. 1998;82:1198–904.Google Scholar
- 84.Holmes-Truscott E, Skovlund SE, Hendrieckx C, Pouwer F, Peyrot M, Speight J. Assessing the perceived impact of diabetes on quality of life: psychometric validation of the DAWN2 Impact of Diabetes Profile in the second Diabetes MILES Australia (MILES-2) survey. Diabetes Res Clin Pract Elsevier. 2019;150:253–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2019.03.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 86.Lin C-Y, Lee T-Y, Sun Z-J, Yang Y-C, Wu J-S, Ou H-T. Development of diabetes-specific quality of life module to be in conjunction with the World Health Organization quality of life scale brief version (WHOQOL-BREF). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15:167 [cited 2019 Mar 29] Available from: http://hqlo.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12955-017-0744-3.
- 92.Celik S, Yenidunya G, Temel E, Purisa S, Uzum AK, Gul N, et al. Utility of DN4 questionnaire in assessment of neuropathic pain and its clinical correlations in Turkish patients with diabetes mellitus. Prim Care Diabetes. 2016;10:259–64 Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751991815001588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 95.Schmitt A, Reimer A, Hermanns N, Huber J, Ehrmann D, Schall S, et al. Assessing diabetes self-management with the diabetes self-management questionnaire (DSMQ) can help analyse behavioural problems related to reduced glycaemic control. PLoS One. 2016;11:1–12.Google Scholar
- 96.Laursen DH, Christensen KB, Christensen U, Frølich A. Assessment of short and long-term outcomes of diabetes patient education using the health education impact questionnaire (HeiQ). BMC Res Notes. 2017;10:213 [cited 2019 Mar 29] Available from: http://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13104-017-2536-6.
- 97.Glasgow RE, Whitesides H, Nelson CC, King DK. Use of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) with diabetic patients: relationship to patient characteristics, receipt of care, and self-management. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:2655–61 [cited 2019 Mar 25] Available from: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.2337/diacare.28.11.2655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 98.Ylitalo KR, Meyer MRU, Lanning BA, During C, Laschober R, Griggs JO. Simple screening tools to identify limited health literacy in a low-income patient population. Med (United States). 2018;97.Google Scholar
- 99.National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC). PRAPARE Implementation and Action Toolkit. 2016 [cited 2019 Mar 1]. Available from: http://www.nachc.org/research-and-data/prapare/toolkit/. Accessed 6 Jun 2019.
- 100.Billioux A, Verlander K, Anthony S, Alley D. Standardized screening for health-related social needs in clinical settings: the accountable health communities screening tool. NAM Perspect. 2017;7(5). https://doi.org/10.31478/201705b
- 103.Speight J, Barendse SM, Singh H, Little SA, Inkster B, Frier BM, et al. Characterizing problematic hypoglycaemia: iterative design and preliminary psychometric validation of the Hypoglycaemia Awareness Questionnaire (HypoA-Q). 2016;33:376–85.Google Scholar