The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why?
- 1.3k Downloads
Precisely defining the different applications of patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) in clinical practice can be difficult. This is because the intervention is complex and varies amongst different studies in terms of the type of PRO used, how the PRO is fed back, and to whom it is fed back.
A theory-driven approach is used to describe six different applications of PROs in clinical practice. The evidence for the impact of these applications on the process and outcomes of care are summarised. Possible explanations for the limited impact of PROs on patient management are then discussed and directions for future research are highlighted.
The applications of PROs in clinical practice include screening tools, monitoring tools, as a method of promoting patient-centred care, as a decision aid, as a method of facilitating communication amongst multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), and as a means of monitoring the quality of patient care. Evidence from randomised controlled trials suggests that the use of PROs in clinical practice is valuable in improving the discussion and detection of HRQoL problems but has less of an impact on how clinicians manage patient problems or on subsequent patient outcomes. Many of the reasons for this may lie in the ways in which PROs fit (or do not fit) into the routine ways in which patients and clinicians communicate with each other, how clinicians make decisions, and how healthcare as a whole is organised.
Future research needs to identify ways in with PROs can be better incorporated into the routine care of patients by combining qualitative and quantitative methods and adopting appropriate trial designs.
KeywordsPatient-reported outcome measure Clinical practice Decision making
- 1.Valderas, J. M., Kotzeva, A., Espallargues, M., Guyatt, G., Ferrans, C. E., Halyard, M. Y., et al. (2008). The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: A systematic review of the literature. Quality of Life Research, 17(2), 179–193. doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9295-0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Campbell, M., Fitzpatrick, R., Haines, A., Kinmonth, A. L., Sandercock, P., Spiegelhalter, D., et al. (2000). Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.), 321(7262), 694–696. doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Pawson, R. (2002). Does Megan’s law work: A theory-driven systematic review. Report No. 8.Google Scholar
- 6.Weiss, C. H. (1995). Nothing as practical as a good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In J. P. Connell (Ed.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods and contexts. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
- 7.Connell, J. P., & Kubisch, A. C. (1995). Applying a theory of change approach to the evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: Progress, prospects and problems. In J. P. Connell (Ed.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
- 12.Rubenstein, L. V., McCoy, J. M., Cope, D. W., Barrett, P. A., Hirsch, S. H., Messer, K. S., et al. (1995). Improving patient quality of life with feedback to physicians about functional status. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 10(11), 607–614. doi:10.1007/BF02602744.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Freeling, P., Rao, B. M., Paykel, E. S., Sireling, L. I., & Burton, R. H. (1985). Unrecognised depression in general practice. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.), 290(6485), 1880–1883.Google Scholar
- 18.Miller, S. D., Duncan, B. L., & Hubble, M. A. (2007). Beyond integration: The triumph of outcome over process in clinical practice. Psychotherapy in Australia, 10(2), 2–19.Google Scholar
- 23.Department of Health. (2004). Patient and public involvement in health: The evidence for policy implementation. A summary of the results of the Health in Partnership programme. London: DoH.Google Scholar
- 29.Long, A. F., & Greenhalgh, J. (1997). Addressing the user’s desired outcomes within routine clinical practice. Journal of Irish College Physicians Surgeons, 26(4), 292–296.Google Scholar
- 33.O’Connor, A. (2001). Using patient decision aids to promote evidence-based decision making. ACP Journal of Club, 135(1), A11–A12.Google Scholar
- 36.Elwyn, G., O’Connor, A., Stacey, D., Volk, R., Edwards, A., Coulter, A., et al. (2006). Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: Online international Delphi consensus process. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.), 333(7565), 417. doi:10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Brundage, M., Leis, A., Bezjak, A., Feldman-Stewart, D., Degner, L., Velji, K., et al. (2003). Cancer patients’ preferences for communicating clinical trial quality of life information: A qualitative study. Quality of Life Research, 12(4), 395–404. doi:10.1023/A:1023404731041.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.Brundage, M., Feldman-Stewart, D., Leis, A., Bezjak, A., & Pater, J. L. (2006). Patients’ judgements about the value of quality of life information when considering lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment options. International Society for Quality of Life Research meeting abstracts. The QLR Journal A-68, Abstract no. 1810.Google Scholar
- 42.Payne, M. (2000). Teamwork in multiprofessional care. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- 46.Law, M., Polatajko, H., Pollock, N., McColl, M. A., Carswell, A., Baptiste, S., et al. (1994). Pilot testing of the Canadian occupational performance measure: Clinical and measurement issues. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(4), 191–197.Google Scholar
- 49.Verhoef, J., Toussaint, P. J., Zwetsloot-Schonk, J. H., Breedveld, F. C., Putter, H., & Vlieland, T. P. M. V. (2007). Effectiveness of the introduction of an international classification of functioning, disability and health-based rehabilitation tool in multidisciplinary team care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 57(2), 240–248. doi:10.1002/art.22539.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 51.Wressle, E., Lindstrand, J., Neher, M., Marcusson, J., & Henriksson, C. (2003). The Canadian occupational performance measure as an outcome measure and team tool in a day treatment programme. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(10), 497–506. doi:10.1080/0963828031000090560.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 55.Department of Health. (2008). High quality care for all: NHS next stage review final report. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
- 56.Appleby, J., & Devlin, N. (2004). Measuring success in the NHS: Using patient assessed health outcomes to manage performance of healthcare providers. London: Dr. Foster Ethics Committee.Google Scholar
- 63.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(4), 401–416. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2753.1999.00209.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 64.Moore, J. T., Silimperi, D. R., & Bobula, J. A. (1978). Recognition of depression by family medicine residents: The impact of screening. The Journal of Family Medicine, 7, 509–513.Google Scholar
- 65.Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., 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 of Clinical Oncology, 22(4), 714–724. doi:10.1200/JCO.2004.06.078.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 67.O’Connor, A. M. (2007). Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online: Update Software), 4.Google Scholar
- 74.Saitz, R., Horton, N. J., Sullivan, L. M., Moskowitz, M. A., & Samet, J. H. (2003). Addressing alcohol problems in primary care: A cluster randomized, controlled trial of a systems intervention. The screening and intervention in primary care (SIP) study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 138(5), 372–382.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 76.Mathias, S. D., Fifer, S. K., Mazonson, P. D., Lubeck, D. P., Buesching, D. P., & Patrick, D. L. (1994). Necessary but not sufficient: The effect of screening and feedback on outcomes of primary care patients with untreated anxiety. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 9(11), 606–615. doi:10.1007/BF02600303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 78.Donaldson, M. S. (2008). Taking PROs and patient-centred care seriously: Incremental and disruptive ideas for incorporating PROs in oncology practice. Quality of Life Research. doi:10.1007/s11136-008-9414-6.
- 79.Ahles, T. A., Wasson, J. H., Seville, J. L., Johnson, D. J., Cole, B. F., Hanscom, B., et al. (2006). A controlled trial of methods for managing pain in primary care patients with or without co-occurring psychosocial problems. Annals of Family Medicine, 4(4), 341–350. doi:10.1370/afm.527.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 80.Detmar, S. B., Muller, M. J., Wever, L. D., Schornagel, J. H., & Aaronson, N. K. (2001). The patient-physician relationship. Patient-physician communication during outpatient palliative treatment visits: An observational study. Journal of American Medical Association, 285(10), 1351–1357. doi:10.1001/jama.285.10.1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 84.McKevitt, C., & Wolfe, C. (2002). Quality of life: what, how, why? Quality in aging-policy. Practice and Research, 3(1), 13–19.Google Scholar
- 85.Greenhalgh, J., Flynn, R., Long, A. F., & Tyson, S. (2008). Tacit and encoded knowledge in the use of standardised outcome measures in multidisciplinary team decision making: A case study of in-patient neurorehabilitation. Social Science & Medicine, 67, 183–194. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 86.Greenhalgh, J., Abhyankar, P., McCluskey, S., Takeurchi, E., & Velikova, G. (2008). How do doctors and patients talk about QoL data in consultations? International Society for Quality of Life Research meeting abstracts. The QLR Journal A-16. Abstract no. 1348.Google Scholar
- 87.Fayers, P. M. (2008). Evaluating the effectiveness of using PROs in clinical practice: a role for cluster-randomised trials. Quality of Life Research. doi:10.1007/s11136-008-9391-9.