Advertisement

Patient and Public Involvement in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Evolution Not Revolution
  • Sophie StaniszewskaEmail author
  • Kirstie L. Haywood
  • Jo Brett
  • Liz Tutton
Current Opinion

Abstract

This paper considers the potential for collaborative patient and public involvement in the development, application, evaluation, and interpretation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The development of PROMs has followed a well trodden methodological path, with patients contributing as research subjects to the content of many PROMs. This paper argues that the development of PROMs should embrace more collaborative forms of patient and public involvement with patients as research partners in the research process, not just as those individuals who are consulted or as subjects, from whom data are sourced, to ensure the acceptability, relevance, and quality of research. We consider the potential for patients to be involved in a much wider range of methodological activities in PROM development working in partnership with researchers, which we hope will promote paradigmal evolution rather than revolution.

Keywords

Public Involvement Prom Development Minimal Important Change COSMIN Checklist Collaborative Form 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

No sources of funding were used to prepare this article. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to its content. The opinions expressed in the article are those of the authors.

SS and KLH conceived of the article. SS and KLH drafted the initial manuscript. All authors reviewed the article and contributed to the re-write.

References

  1. 1.
    Patrick DL, Burke LB, Powers JH, et al. Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labelling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health 2007; 10Suppl. 2: S125–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dawson J, Doll H, Fitzpatrick R, et al. The routine use of patient reported outcome measures in healthcare settings. BMJ 2010; 340: c186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barham L, Devlin N. Patient-reported outcome measures: implications for nursing. Nurs Stand 2011; 25(18): 42–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, et al. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 1998; 2: 1–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hewlett SA. Patients and clinicians have different perspectives on outcomes in arthritis. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 877–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kessler L, Ramsey SD. The outcomes of the cancer outcomes research symposium: a commentary. Med Care 2002; 40(6 Suppl.): III104–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kvien TK, Heiberg T. Patient perspective in outcome assessments — perceptions or something more? J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 873–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liang MH. Pushing the limits of patient-oriented outcome measurements in the search for disease modifying treatments for osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 2004; 70: 61–5Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Echteld I, Cieza A, Boonen A, et al. Identification of the most common problems by patients with ankylosing spondylitis using the international classification of functioning, disability and health. J Rheumatol 2006; 33(12): 2475–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marshall S, Haywood K, Fitzpatrick R. Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review. J Eval Clin Pract 2006; 12(5): 559–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haywood K, Marshall SS, Fitzpatrick R. Patient participation in the consultation process: a structured review of intervention strategies. Patient Educ Couns 2006 Oct; 63(1-2): 12–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Greenhalgh J, Long AF, Flynn R. The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: lack of impact or lack of theory — the clinician’s point of view. Soc Sci Med 2005; 60: 833–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Timmins N. Assessing patient care: NHS goes to the PROMS. BMJ 2008; 336: 1464–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vallance-Owen A, Cubbin S, Warren V, et al. Outcome monitoring to facilitate clinical governance experience from a national programme in the independent sector. J Public Health 2004; 26: 187–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Department of Health. Guidance on the routine collection of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for the NHS in England 2009/10. London: Department of Health, 2008Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Staley K. Exploring impact: public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE, 2009Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. The PIRICOM study: a systematic review of the conceptualisation, measurement, impact and outcomes of patients and public involvement in health and social care research. London: UK Clinical Research Collaboration, 2009Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mockford C, Staniszewska S, Griffiths F, et al. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care 2012; 24(1): 28–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cashman SB, Adeky S, Allen III AJ, et al. The power and the promise: working with communities to analyze data, interpret findings, and get to outcomes. Am J Public Health 2008; 98(8): 1407–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shah SG, Robinson I. Benefits of and barriers to involving users in medical device technology development and evaluation. Int J Technol Assess 2007; 23(1): 131–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rowe A. The effect of involvement in participatory research on parent researchers in a Sure Start programme. Health Soc Care Comm 2006; 14(6): 465–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hewlett S, de Wit M, Richards P, et al. Patients and professionals as research partners: challenges, practicalities and benefits. Arthritis Rheum 2006; 55(4): 676–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Barnard A, Carter M, Britten N, et al. The PC11 report: an evaluation of consumer involvement in the London Primary Care Studies Programme. Exeter: Peninsula Medical School, 2005Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Griffiths KM, Jorm AF, Christensen H. Academic consumer researchers: a bridge between consumers and researchers. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2004; 38(4): 191–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Minkler M, Fadem P, Perry M, et al. Ethical dilemmas in participatory action research: a case study from the disability community. Health Edu Behav 2002; 29(1): 14–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hanley B, Truesdale A, King A, et al. Involving consumers in designing, conducting, and interpreting randomised controlled trials: questionnaire survey. BMJ 2001; 322(7285): 519–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lloyd M, Preston-Shoot M, Temple B, et al. Whose project is it anyway? Sharing and shaping research and development agenda. Disabil Soc 1996; 11(3): 301–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wyatt K, Carter M, Mahtani V, et al. The impact of consumer involvement in research: an evaluation of consumer involvement in the London Primary Care Studies Programme. Fam Pract 2008; 25(3): 154–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Plumb M, Price W, Kavanaugh-Lynch M. Funding community-based participatory research: lessons learned. J Interprof Care 2004; 18(4): 428–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Gibson A, et al. Moving forward: understanding the negative experiences and impacts of patient and public involvement in health service planning, development and evaluation. In: Barnes M, Cotterell P, editors. Critical perspectives on user involvement. Bristol: Policy Press, 2011Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ong BN, Hooper H. Involving users in low back pain research. Health Expect 2003; 6: 332–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Beresford P, Campbell J. Disabled people, service users, user involvement and representation. Disabil Soc 1994; 9(3): 315–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hanley B, Bradburn J, Gorin S, et al. Involving consumers in research and development in the NHS: briefing notes for researchers. Winchester: Consumers in NHS Research Support Unit, 2000Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nicklin J, Cramp F, Kirwan J, et al. Collaboration with patients in the design of patient-reported outcome measures: capturing the experience of fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2010; 62(11): 1552–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Haywood KL, Staniszewska S, Chapman S. Quality and acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures used in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME): a systematic review. Quality Life Res 2012; 21(1): 35–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry — patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf [Accessed 2011 Apr 4]Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gandhi GY, Murad MH, Fujiyoshi A, et al. Patient-important outcomes in registered diabetes trials. JAMA 2008 Jun 4; 299(21): 2543–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Smith S, Cano S, Lamping D, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for routine use in treatment centres: recommendations based on a review of the scientific evidence (final report to the Department of Health). 2005 Dec [online]. Available from URL: http://www.wmqi.westmidlands.nhs.uk/downloads/file/PROMS%20Final%20report%20Dec%2005.pdf [Accessed 2011 Apr 4]
  39. 39.
    Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 2008Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A, et al. Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ 2002 Jun 15; 324(7351): 1417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    McDowell I. Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. 3rd ed. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 2006Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Quality Life Res 2010; 19: 539–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. Assessing health status and quality of life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Quality Life Res 2002; 11: 193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60(1): 34–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    The James Lind Alliance [online]. Available from URL: http://www.lindalliance.org [Accessed 2012 Apr 1]
  46. 46.
    Ware L, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short Form-36 health survey (SF-36): conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ziebland S, Fitzpatrick R, Jenkinson C. Tacit models of disability underlying health status instruments. Soc Sci Med 1993 Jul; 37(1): 69–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kirwan JR, Hewlett SE, Heiberg T, et al. Incorporating the patient perspective into outcome assessment in rheumatoid arthritis — progress at OMERACT 7. J Rheumatol 2005 Nov; 32(11): 2250–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Carr A, Hewlett S, Hughes R, et al. Rheumatology outcomes: the patient’s perspective. J Rheumatol 2003 Apr; 30(4): 880–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Collins D. Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Quality Life Res 2003; 12: 229–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Christodoulou C, Junghaenel DU, DeWalt DA, et al. Cognitive interviewing in the evaluation of fatigue items: results from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Quality Life Res 2008; 17: 1239–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sophie Staniszewska
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kirstie L. Haywood
    • 1
  • Jo Brett
    • 1
  • Liz Tutton
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Royal College of Nursing Research Institute (RCN RI), School of Health and Social StudiesUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK
  2. 2.Trauma UnitOxford University Hospitals NHS TrustOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations