Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Research Outcome Measures

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy Research: Skills and Strategies

  • 1783 Accesses

Abstract

An outcome is a consequence or result thus an outcome measure in research is a standardised way of measuring the consequences or results of research. Outcome measures are widely used in clinical practice, service evaluation, and research, however their selection and use may be complicated by the dearth of information available. The selection of outcome measures should be undertaken at a research design stage and should fit with the methodology, aims, and objectives of the research. There are many factors influencing the choice of outcome measure to report results and is important to know whether the chosen outcome measure is valid and reliable, researchers are therefore cautioned against developing their own. This chapter is designed to aid a researcher in understanding classifications and considerations when selecting outcome measures. Advice is presented along with information on how to report outcome measures in the write up of research. Outcome measures used in radiography research are also presented in this chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Defined as a state of mental or emotional strain or tension resulting from adverse or demanding circumstances.

  2. 2.

    A ceiling effect is when the top scale on the measurement instrument is consistently reached, thus reducing the ability of the scale to accurately capture data beyond the top of the scale.

References

  1. Prinsen CAC, Vohra S, Rose MR, Boers M, Tugwell P, Clarke M, et al. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set” a practical guideline. BMC Trials. 2016;17(1):449.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cameron WB. Informal sociology a casual introduction to sociological thinking. New York: Random House; 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rainforth MV, Schneider RH, Nidich SI, Gaylord-King C, Salerno JW, Anderson JW. Stress reduction programs in patients with elevated blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2007;9(6):520–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nelson EC, Eftimovska E, Lind C, Hager A, Wasson JH, Lindblad S. Patient reported outcome measures in practice. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2015;350.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Andrade C. The primary outcome measure and its importance in clinical trials. J Clin Psychiatry. 2015;76(10):1320–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ferreira JC, Patino CM. Types of outcomes in clinical research. J Bras Pneumol. 2017;43(1):5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, HCW DV, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147–57.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mohtadi NG. Outcome measure development. Instr Course Lect. 2016;65:577–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dodd SR, Clarke M, Becker L, Mavergames C, Fish R, Williamson PR. A taxonomy has been developed for outcomes in medical research to help improve knowledge discovery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;96:84–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. J Am Med Assoc. 1995;273(1):59–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. NHS Better Care Fund Taskforce. ‘How to guide’; the better care taskforce technical toolkit. Section 3. Outcomes and impact measurement. London; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  12. University of Oxford. Patient reported outcome measures: instrument types. Oxford; 2010 [cited 2019 May 13]. http://phi.uhce.ox.ac.uk/inst_types.php.

  13. The Association of UK Dietitians. Model for dietetic outcomes. Birmingham; 2011 [cited 2019 May 15]. https://www.bda.uk.com/publications/archive/bda_outcome_model__2011_archive.

  14. The Association of UK Dietitians. Model and process for nutrition and dietetic practice. 2017 [cited 2019 May 14]. https://www.bda.uk.com/professional/practice/process.

  15. OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) [cited 2019 May 20]. https://omeract.org/.

  16. Boers M. How outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials works to develop outcome measures in rheumatology clinical trials. Choosing and developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials filter 2.0. Rheumatology. 2017;56:kex060.116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Speight J, Barendse SM. FDA guidance on patient reported outcomes. BMJ. 2010;c2921:340.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Staniszewska S, Haywood KL, Brett J, Tutton L. Patient and public involvement in patient-reported outcome measures: evolution not revolution. Patient. 2012;5(2):79–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Greenhalgh J, Dalkin S, Gooding K, Gibbons E, Wright J, Meads D, Health Services and Delivery Research, et al. Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care. Southampton: NIHR Journals Library; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Darzi A. High quality care for all: NHS next stage review final report. London: The Stationery Office; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  21. NHS Digital. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). 2019 [cited 2019 May 15]. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/patient-reported-outcome-measures-proms.

  22. Gibbons E, Calvert M, Bostock J, Skryban M. Proceedings of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) conference Birmingham 2018: Birmingham, UK. 20 June, 2018. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018;2(Suppl 2):58.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Coster WJ. Making the best match: selecting outcome measures for clinical trials and outcome studies. Am J Occup Ther. 2013;67(2):162–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bolton JE. Sensitivity and specificity of outcome measures in patients with neck pain: detecting clinically significant improvement. Spine. 2004;29(21):2410–7; discussion 8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hodson M, Andrew S, Michael Roberts C. Towards an understanding of PREMS and PROMS in COPD. Breathe. 2013;9:358–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. McKenna SP. Measuring patient-reported outcomes: moving beyond misplaced common sense to hard science. BMC Med. 2011;9(1):86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bleich SN, Ozaltin E, Murray CJL. How does satisfaction with the health-care system relate to patient experience. Bull World Health Organ. 2009;87:271–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. National Health Service. Friends and family test. 2018 [cited 2019 May 20]. https://www.nhs.uk/using-the-nhs/about-the-nhs/friends-and-family-test-fft/.

  29. Black N, Varaganum M, Hutchings A. Relationship between patient reported experience (PREMs) and patient reported outcomes (PROMs) in elective surgery. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23:534–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Antunes B, Harding R, Higginson IJ. Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice: a systematic review of facilitators and barriers. Palliat Med. 2014;28(2):158–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Brinker M, O’Connor D. Stakeholders in outcome measures: review from a clinical perspective. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(11):3426–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Duncan E, Murray J. The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(1):96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tarrant C, Angell E, Baker R, Boulton M, Freeman G, Wilkie P, et al. Responsiveness of primary care services: development of a patient-report measure – qualitative study and initial quantitative pilot testing. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2014;2(46):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Roach KE. Measurement of health outcomes: reliability, validity and responsiveness. J Prosthet Orthot. 2006;18(6):P8–P12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Heale R, Twycross A. Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evid Based Nurs. 2015;18(3):66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Boonstra AM, Schiphorst Preuper HR, Reneman MF, Posthumus JB, Stewart RE. Reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale for disability in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Int J Rehabil Res. 2008;31(2):165–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Bergh I, Sjostrom B. Quantification of the pain terms hurt, ache and pain among nursing students. Scand J Caring Sci. 2007;21(2):163–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Boini S, Guillemin F. Radiographic scoring methods as outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis: properties and advantages. Ann Rheum Dis. 2001;60(9):817–27.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Mellor F, Knapp K. Research outcome measures. In: Ramlaul A, editor. Medical imaging and radiotherapy research: skills and strategies. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2010. p. 111–21.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Crewson PE, Applegate KE. Data collection in radiology research. Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177(4):755–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Pinotti R. PROQOLID. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104(1):91–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kelly A, Tong A, Tymms K, March L, Craig JC, De Vera M, et al. Outcome measures in rheumatology - core domain set for trials of interventions for medication adherence in rheumatology: 5 phase study protocol. Trials. 2018;19:204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hardy M, Hutton J, Snaith B. Is a radiographer led immediate reporting service for emergency department referrals a cost effective initiative? Radiography. 2013;19(1):23–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Vetter TR, Mascha EJ. Defining the primary outcomes and justifying secondary outcomes of a study: usually, the fewer, the better. Anesth Analg. 2017;125(2):678–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Faithfull S, Lemanska A, Chen T. Patient-reported outcome measures in radiotherapy: clinical advances and research opportunities in measurement for survivorship. Clin Oncol. 2015;27(11):679–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Mathers SA, Chesson RA, Proctor JM, GA MK, Robertson E. The use of patient-centered outcome measures in radiology: a systematic review. Acad Radiol. 2006;13(11):1394–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. National Health Service. Cancer waiting times. [cited 2019 May 15]. https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/cancer-waiting-times/.

  48. Brunt AM, Wheatley D, Yarnold J, Somaiah N, Kelly S, Harnett A, et al. Acute skin toxicity associated with a 1-week schedule of whole breast radiotherapy compared with a standard 3-week regimen delivered in the UK FAST-forward trial. Radiother Oncol. 2016;120(1):114–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Hopwood P, Haviland JS, Sumo G, Mills J, Bliss JM, Yarnold JR. Comparison of patient-reported breast, arm, and shoulder symptoms and body image after radiotherapy for early breast cancer: 5-year follow-up in the randomised standardisation of breast radiotherapy (START) trials. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(3):231–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Society and College of Radiographers. Society and College of Radiographers Research Priorities. [cited 2019 May 20]. https://www.sor.org/system/files/article/201312/scor_research_priorities.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. AECC University College, Bournemouth, UK

    Fiona Mellor

  2. South Cloisters, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

    Karen Knapp

Authors
  1. Fiona Mellor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen Knapp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fiona Mellor .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Diagnostic Radiography and Imaging, School of Health and Social Work, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK

    Aarthi Ramlaul

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mellor, F., Knapp, K. (2020). Research Outcome Measures. In: Ramlaul, A. (eds) Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy Research: Skills and Strategies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37944-5_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37944-5_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-37943-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-37944-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation