A qualitative study of patients’ perceptions of the utility of patient-reported outcome measures of symptoms in primary care clinics
Sleep, pain, anxiety, depression, and low energy/fatigue (SPADE pentad) symptoms are common, but often unrecognized and undertreated in primary care. In an effort to improve symptom outcomes, primary care clinics are integrating patient-reported outcome measures (PROs), such as the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS), into practice. Whether patients with SPADE symptoms perceive these measures as useful is unknown. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore patients’ perceptions of the utility of symptom-based PROs in primary care.
As part of a mixed-methods study, 23 patients (age 24–77 years) with one or more SPADE symptoms participated in one-on-one interviews about the use, implementation and visual display of PROMIS. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis.
Five themes emerged: (1) PROs may foster communication about symptoms; (2) data from PROs may prompt clinical actions; (3) the visual display of symptom scores could be useful for patients and providers, though modifications may enhance interpretation; (4) implementation may vary according to patients’ perception of PRO features (e.g., length); and (5) PROs may be useful, but only to the extent that they are valued, prioritized, and used.
According to patients, the use of PROs to measure symptoms in primary care clinics has the potential to be useful. However, patients are reluctant to complete PROs if they perceive that clinicians do not use the measures to improve care. Barriers to implementation in primary care (e.g., duration of visit) should be addressed to enhance the utility of PROs. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02383862.
KeywordsPatient-reported outcome measures Symptoms Primary care Qualitative
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Contract ME-1403-12043.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 3.Lowe, B., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B., Mussell, M., Schellberg, D., & Kroenke, K. (2008). Depression, anxiety and somatization in primary care: Syndrome overlap and functional impairment. General Hospital Psychiatry, 30(3), 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2008.01.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Gates, K., Petterson, S., Wingrove, P., Miller, B., & Klink, K. (2016). You can’t treat what you don’t diagnose: An analysis of the recognition of somatic presentations of depression and anxiety in primary care. Families, Systems, & Health, 34(4), 317–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/fsh0000229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Aguera, L., Failde, I., Cervilla, J. A., Diaz-Fernandez, P., & Mico, J. A. (2010). Medically unexplained pain complaints are associated with underlying unrecognized mood disorders in primary care. BMC Family Practice, 11, 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-11-17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 9.Edwards, T. M., Stern, A., Clarke, D. D., Ivbijaro, G., & Kasney, L. M. (2010). The treatment of patients with medically unexplained symptoms in primary care: A review of the literature. Mental Health and Family Medicine, 7(4), 209–221.Google Scholar
- 11.Institute of Medicine. (2001). Cossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, D. C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- 12.Hurtado, M. P., Swift, E. K., & Corrigan, J. M. (2001). Envisioning the national health care quality report. Washington, D. C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- 16.US Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry patient reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Federal Register, 74(35), 65132–65133.Google Scholar
- 18.Greenhalgh, J., Dalkin, S., Gooding, K., Gibbons, E., Wright, J., Meads, D., et al. (2017). Functionality and feedback: A realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care. Health Services and Delivery Research, 5(2), 1–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Boyce, M. B., Browne, J. P., & Greenhalgh, J. (2014). The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: A systematic review of qualitative research. Bmj Quality & Safety, 23(6), 508–518. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., et al. (2010). The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 22.Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 41(5), 582–592. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MLR.0000062554.74615.4C.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Trujols, J., Portella, M. J., Iraurgi, I., Campins, M. J., Sinol, N., & de L. Cobos, J. P (2013). Patient-reported outcome measures: Are they patient-generated, patient-centred or patient-valued? Journal of Mental Health, 22(6), 555–562. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638237.2012.734653.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Johnston, K. L., Lawrence, S. M., Dodds, N. E., Yu, L., Daley, D. C., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2016). Evaluating PROMIS(R) instruments and methods for patient-centered outcomes research: Patient and provider voices in a substance use treatment setting. Quality of Life Research, 25(3), 615–624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1131-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.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. BMJ, 338, b663. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b663.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Wikberg, C., Pettersson, A., Westman, J., Bjorkelund, C., & Petersson, E. L. (2016). Patients’ perspectives on the use of the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale self-assessment version in primary care. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, 34(4), 434–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/02813432.2016.1248635.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 30.Snyder, C. F., Smith, K. C., Bantug, E. T., Tolbert, E. E., Blackford, A. L., Brundage, M. D., et al. (2017). What do these scores mean? Presenting patient-reported outcomes data to patients and clinicians to improve interpretability. Cancer, 123(10), 1848–1859. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30530.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 32.Arroll, B., Goodyear-Smith, F., Kerse, N., Fishman, T., & Gunn, J. (2005). Effect of the addition of a “help” question to two screening questions on specificity for diagnosis of depression in general practice: diagnostic validity study. BMJ, 331(7521), 884. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38607.464537.7C.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 34.Chen, J., Ou, L., & Hollis, S. J. (2013). A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting. BMC Health Services Research, 13, 211. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-211.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 35.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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9295-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar