Quality of Life Research

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 1369–1380 | Cite as

Do patients have a say? A narrative review of the development of patient-reported outcome measures used in elective procedures for coronary revascularisation

  • Geeske Peeters
  • Anna L. Barker
  • Jason Talevski
  • Ilana Ackerman
  • Darshini R. Ayton
  • Christopher Reid
  • Sue M. Evans
  • Johannes U. Stoelwinder
  • John J. McNeil



Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) capture health information from the patient’s perspective that can be used when weighing up benefits, risks and costs of treatment. This is important for elective procedures such as those for coronary revascularisation. Patients should be involved in the development of PROMs to accurately capture outcomes that are important for the patient. The aims of this review are to identify if patients were involved in the development of cardiovascular-specific PROMs used for assessing outcomes from elective coronary revascularisation, and to explore what methods were used to capture patient perspectives.


PROMs for evaluating outcomes from elective coronary revascularisation were identified from a previous review and an updated systematic search. The studies describing the development of the PROMs were reviewed for information on patient input in their conceptual and/or item development.


24 PROMs were identified from a previous review and three additional PROMs were identified from the updated search. Full texts were obtained for 26 of the 27 PROMs. The 26 studies (11 multidimensional, 15 unidimensional) were reviewed. Only nine studies reported developing PROMs using patient input. For eight PROMs, the inclusion of patient input could not be judged due to insufficient information in the full text.


Only nine of the 26 reviewed PROMs used in elective coronary revascularisation reported involving patients in their conceptual and/or item development, while patient input was unclear for eight PROMs. These findings suggest that the patient’s perspective is often overlooked or poorly described in the development of PROMs.


Coronary artery disease Patient-reported outcome measures Quality of life Percutaneous coronary intervention 



The project was supported by a Medibank Health Research Fund (Application Number: 2014-044, Melbourne, Australia). The funding source had no influence on the study design, data collection and analyses, interpretation and decision to publish.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11136_2018_1795_MOESM1_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 19 KB)


  1. 1.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry patient-reported outcomes measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McKenna S. P. (2011). Measuring patient-reported outcomes: Moving beyond misplaced common sense to hard science. BMC Medicine, 9(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brod, M., Tesler, L. E., & Christensen, T. L. (2009). Qualitative research and content validity: Developing best practices based on science and experience. Quality of Life Research, 18(9), 1263–1278.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Gwaltney, C. J., et al. (2011). Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: Part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value in Health, 14(8), 967–977.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Woodend, A. K., Nair, R. C., & Tang, A. S. (1997). Definition of life quality from a patient versus health care professional perspective. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 20(1), 71–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morris, D. B., Wilson, K. G., Clinch, J. J., et al. (2006). Identification of domains relevant to health-related quality of life in patients undergoing major surgery. Quality of Life Research, 15(5), 841–854.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Staniszewska, S., Haywood, K. L., Brett, J., & Tutton, L. (2012). Patient and public involvement in patient-reported outcome measures: Evolution not revolution. Patient, 5(2), 79–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rumsfeld, J. S., Alexander, K. P., Goff, D. C. Jr., et al. (2013). Cardiovascular health: The importance of measuring patient-reported health status: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 127(22), 2233–2249.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anker, S. D., Agewall, S., Borggrefe, M., et al. (2014). The importance of patient-reported outcomes: A call for their comprehensive integration in cardiovascular clinical trials. European Heart Journal, 35(30), 2001–2009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wijeysundera, H. C., Nallamothu, B. K., Krumholz, H. M., Tu, J. V., & Ko, D. T. (2010). Meta-analysis: Effects of percutaneous coronary intervention versus medical therapy on angina relief. Annals of Internal Medicine, 152(6), 370–379.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Trikalinos, T. A., Alsheikh-Ali, A. A., Tatsioni, A., Nallamothu, B. K., & Kent, D. M. (2009). Percutaneous coronary interventions for non-acute coronary artery disease: A quantitative 20-year synopsis and a network meta-analysis. Lancet, 373(9667), 911–918.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stergiopoulos, K., & Brown, D. L. (2012). Initial coronary stent implantation with medical therapy vs medical therapy alone for stable coronary artery disease: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Annals of Internal Medicine, 172(4), 312–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thomas, S., Gokhale, R., Boden, W. E., & Devereaux, P. J. (2013). A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with medical therapy in stable angina pectoris. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 29(4), 472–482.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pursnani, S., Korley, F., Gopaul, R., et al. (2012). Percutaneous coronary intervention versus optimal medical therapy in stable coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Circulation, 5(4), 476–490.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mackintosh, A., Gibbons, E., Casanas i Comabella, C., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2010). A structured review of patient-reported outcome measures used in elective procedures for coronary revascularisation. Oxford: University of Oxford, Department of Public Health.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baumeister, H., Abberger, B., Haschke, A., Boecker, M., Bengel, J., & Wirtz, M. (2013). Development and calibration of an item bank for the assessment of activities of daily living in cardiovascular patients using Rasch analysis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 133.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oldridge, N., Hofer, S., McGee, H., Conroy, R., Doyle, F., & Saner, H. (2014). The HeartQoL: Part I. Development of a new core health-related quality of life questionnaire for patients with ischemic heart disease. European journal of preventive cardiology, 21(1), 90–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wan, C., Li, H., Fan, X., et al. (2014). Development and validation of the coronary heart disease scale under the system of quality of life instruments for chronic diseases QLICD-CHD: Combinations of classical test theory and Generalizability Theory. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nieveen, J. L., Zimmerman, L. M., Barnason, S. A., & Yates, B. C. (2008). Development and content validity testing of the Cardiac Symptom Survey in patients after coronary artery bypass grafting. Heart and Lung, 37(1), 17–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Green, C. P., Porter, C. B., Bresnahan, D. R., & Spertus, J. A. (2000). Development and evaluation of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire: A new health status measure for heart failure. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 35(5), 1245–1255.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hillers, T. K., Guyatt, G. H., Oldridge, N., et al. (1994). Quality of life after myocardial infarction. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47(11), 1287–1296.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hlatky, M. A., Boineau, R. E., Higginbotham, M. B., et al. (1989). A brief self-administered questionnaire to determine functional capacity (the Duke Activity Status Index). American Journal of Cardiology, 64(10), 651–654.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schroter, S., & Lamping, D. L. (2004). Coronary revascularisation outcome questionnaire (CROQ): Development and validation of a new, patient based measure of outcome in coronary bypass surgery and angioplasty. Heart, 90(12), 1460–1466.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jenkins, C. D., Stanton, B. A., Savageau, J. A., Denlinger, P., & Klein, M. D. (1983). Coronary artery bypass surgery. Physical, psychological, social, and economic outcomes six months later. JAMA, 250(6), 782–788.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ferrans, C. E. (1992). Conceptualizations of quality of life in cardiovascular research. Progress in Cardiovascular Nursing, 7(1), 2–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ferrans, C. E., & Powers, M. J. (1985). Quality of life index: Development and psychometric properties. ANS, 8(1), 15–24.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Spertus, J. A., Winder, J. A., Dewhurst, T. A., et al. (1995). Development and evaluation of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire: A new functional status measure for coronary artery disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 25(2), 333–341.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wan, C., Tu, X., Messing, S., et al. (2011). Development and validation of the general module of the system of quality of life instruments for chronic diseases and its comparison with SF-36. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 42(1), 93–104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bennett, S. J. (1992). Perceived threats of individuals recovering from myocardial infarction. Heart and Lung, 21(4), 322–326.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bennett, S. J., Puntenney, P. J., Walker, N. L., & Ashley, N. D. (1996). Development of an instrument to measure threat related to cardiac events. Nursing Research, 45(5), 266–270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goldman, L., Hashimoto, B., Cook, E. F., & Loscalzo, A. (1981). Comparative reproducibility and validity of systems for assessing cardiovascular functional class: Advantages of a new specific activity scale. Circulation, 64(6), 1227–1234.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rose, G. A. (1962). The diagnosis of ischaemic heart pain and intermittent claudication in field surveys. Bull World Health Organ, 27, 645–658.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rumbaugh, D. M., & Knapp, R. R. (1965). Prediction of work potential in heart patients through use of the cardiac adjustment scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29(6), 597.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Barnason, S., Zimmerman, L., Atwood, J., Nieveen, J., & Schmaderer, M. (2002). Development of a self-efficacy instrument for coronary artery bypass graft patients. The Journal of Nursing Measurement, 10(2), 123–133.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Miller, K. H., & Grindel, C. G. (2004). Comparison of symptoms of younger and older patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. Clinical Nursing Research, 13(3), 179–193.(discussion 194–178).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Plach, S. K., & Heidrich, S. M. (2001). Women’s perceptions of their social roles after heart surgery and coronary angioplasty. Heart and Lung, 30(2), 117–127.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    The ENRICHD Investigators. (2000). Enhancing recovery in coronary heart disease patients (ENRICHD): Study design and methods. American Heart Journal, 139(1 Pt 1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hare, D. L., & Davis, C. R. (1996). Cardiac depression scale: Validation of a new depression scale for cardiac patients. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 40(4), 379–386.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Peduzzi, P., & Hultgren, H. N. (1979). Effect of medical vs surgical treatment on symptoms in stable angina pectoris. The Veterans Administration Cooperative Study of surgery for coronary arterial occlusive disease. Circulation, 60(4), 888–900.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sullivan, M. D., LaCroix, A. Z., Russo, J., & Katon, W. J. (1998). Self-efficacy and self-reported functional status in coronary heart disease: A six-month prospective study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 60(4), 473–478.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Moser, D. K., & Dracup, K. (1995). Psychosocial recovery from a cardiac event: The influence of perceived control. Heart and Lung, 24(4), 273–280.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Artinian, N. T., Duggan, C., & Miller, P. (1993). Age differences in patient recovery patterns following coronary artery bypass surgery. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2(6), 453–461.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Keresztes, P., Holm, K., Penckofer, S., & Merritt, S. (1993). Measurement of functional ability in patients with coronary artery disease. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1(1), 19–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Moser, D. K., Riegel, B., McKinley, S., et al. (2009). The Control attitudes scale-revised: Psychometric evaluation in three groups of patients with cardiac illness. Nursing Research, 58(1), 42–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    LaPier, T. K., & Chunkwon, J. (2002). Development and content validity of the heart surgery symptom inventory. Acute Care Perspectives, 11, 5–12.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wiering, B., de Boer, D., & Delnoij, D. (2017). Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures: A scoping review. Health Expectations, 20(1), 11–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Haywood, K. L., Mars, T. S., Potter, R., Patel, S., Matharu, M., & Underwood, M. (2017). Assessing the impact of headaches and the outcomes of treatment: A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Cephalalgia.
  49. 49.
    Haywood, K. L., Staniszewska, S., & Chapman, S. (2012). Quality and acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures used in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME): A systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 21(1), 35–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    McLean, S., Holden, M. A., Potia, T., et al. (2017). Quality and acceptability of measures of exercise adherence in musculoskeletal settings: A systematic review. Rheumatology, 56(3), 426–438.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bredart, A., Marrel, A., Abetz-Webb, L., Lasch, K., & Acquadro, C. (2014). Interviewing to develop patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures for clinical research: Eliciting patients’ experience. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lasch, K. E., Marquis, P., Vigneux, M., et al. (2010). PRO development: Rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation. Quality of Life Research, 19(8), 1087–1096.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Boers, M., Brooks, P., Simon, L. S., Strand, V., & Tugwell, P. (2005). OMERACT: An international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 23(5 Suppl 39), S10–S13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Gargon, E., Williamson, P. R., Altman, D. G., Blazeby, J. M., & Clarke, M. (2014). The COMET Initiative database: Progress and activities from 2011 to 2013. Trials, 15, 279.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    McNamara, R. L., Spatz, E. S., Kelley, T. A., et al. (2015). Standardized outcome measurement for patients with coronary artery disease: Consensus from the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM). Journal of the American Heart Association, 4(5), e001767CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Peduzzi, P., & Hultgren, H. (1985). Angina scoring method in the Veterans Administration randomized study of bypass surgery. American Journal of Epidemiology, 122(3), 477–484.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Powers, J. H., et al. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective. Value in Health, 10(Suppl 2), S125–S137.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, 22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lim, L. L., Valenti, L. A., Knapp, J. C., et al. (1993). A self-administered quality-of-life questionnaire after acute myocardial infarction. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46(11), 1249–1256.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Jenkins, C. D., Jono, R. T., Stanton, B. A., Stroup-Benham, C. A., (1990). The measurement of health-related quality of life: major dimensions identified by factor analysis. Social Science Medicine, 31(8), 925–931.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Rose, G. A., Blackburn, H. (1968). Cardiovascular survey methods. Monograph Series World Health Organization, 56, 1–188.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geeske Peeters
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anna L. Barker
    • 1
  • Jason Talevski
    • 1
  • Ilana Ackerman
    • 1
  • Darshini R. Ayton
    • 1
  • Christopher Reid
    • 1
    • 3
  • Sue M. Evans
    • 1
  • Johannes U. Stoelwinder
    • 1
  • John J. McNeil
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive MedicineMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Global Brain Health InstituteUniversity of California, San Francisco | Trinity College, DublinDublin 2Ireland
  3. 3.School of Public HealthCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations