Patient-reported outcome measures: an on-line system empowering patient choice

Meaningful patient and public involvement in digital health innovation, implementation and evaluation: A systematic review

Introduction

The importance of meaningfully involving patients and the public in digital health innovation is widely acknowledged, but often poorly understood. This review, therefore, sought to explore how patients and the public are involved in digital health innovation and to identify factors that support and inhibit meaningful patient and public involvement (PPI) in digital health innovation, implementation and evaluation.

Methods

Searches were undertaken from 2010 to July 2020 in the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and ACM Digital Library. Grey literature searches were also undertaken using the Patient Experience Library database and Google Scholar.

Results

Of the 10,540 articles identified, 433 were included. The majority of included articles were published in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, with representation from 42 countries highlighting the international relevance of PPI in digital health. 112 topic areas where PPI had reportedly taken place were identified. Areas most often described included cancer (n = 50), mental health (n = 43), diabetes (n = 26) and long‐term conditions (n = 19). Interestingly, over 133 terms were used to describe PPI; few were explicitly defined. Patients were often most involved in the final, passive stages of an innovation journey, for example, usability testing, where the ability to proactively influence change was severely limited. Common barriers to achieving meaningful PPI included data privacy and security concerns, not involving patients early enough and lack of trust. Suggested enablers were often designed to counteract such challenges.

Conclusions

PPI is largely viewed as valuable and essential in digital health innovation, but rarely practised. Several barriers exist for both innovators and patients, which currently limits the quality, frequency and duration of PPI in digital health innovation, although improvements have been made in the past decade. Some reported barriers and enablers such as the importance of data privacy and security appear to be unique to PPI in digital innovation. Greater efforts should be made to support innovators and patients to become meaningfully involved in digital health innovations from the outset, given its reported benefits and impacts. Stakeholder consensus on the principles that underpin meaningful PPI in digital health innovation would be helpful in providing evidence‐based guidance on how to achieve this.

Patient or Public Contribution

This review has received extensive patient and public contributions with a representative from the Patient Experience Library involved throughout the review's conception, from design (including suggested revisions to the search strategy) through to article production and dissemination. Other areas of patient and public contributor involvement include contributing to the inductive thematic analysis process, refining the thematic framework and finalizing theme wording, helping to ensure relevance, value and meaning from a patient perspective. Findings from this review have also been presented to a variety of stakeholders including patients, patient advocates and clinicians through a series of focus groups and webinars. Given their extensive involvement, the representative from the Patient Experience Library is rightly included as an author of this review.

Comparison of patient- and clinician-reported outcome measures in lower back rehabilitation: introducing a new integrated performance measure (t2D)

Purpose

Patient- and clinician-reported outcome measures (PROMs, CROMs) are used in rehabilitation to evaluate and track the patient’s health status and recovery. However, controversy still exists regarding their relevance and validity when assessing a change in health status.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the changes in a CROM (Fingertip-To-Floor Test – FTF) and PROMs (ODI, HAQ-DI, NPRS, EQ5D) and the associations between these outcomes in 395 patients with lower back pain (57.2 ± 11.8 years, 49.1% female). We introduced a new way to measure and classify outcome performance using a distribution-based approach (t2D). Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and after 21 days of inpatient rehabilitation.

Results

Overall, the rehabilitation (Cohens d = 0.94) resulted in a large effect size outcome. Medium effect sizes were observed for FTF (d = 0.70) and PROMs (d > 0.50). Best performance rating was observed for pain (NPRS). We found that 13.9% of patients exhibited a deterioration in the PROMs, but only 2.3%, in the FTF. The correlation between the PROMs and FTF were low to moderate, with the highest identified for HAQ-DI (rho = 0.30–0.36); no significant correlations could be shown for changes. High consistency levels were observed among the performance scores (t2D) in 68.9% of the patients.

Conclusions

Different and complementary assessment modalities of PROMs and CROMs can be used as valuable tools in the clinical setting. Results from both types of measurements and individual performance assessments in patients provide a valid basis for the meaningful interpretation of the patients’ health outcomes.

Trial registration. This clinical study was entered retrospectively on August 14, 2020 into the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS, registration number: DRKS00022854).

Patient and clinician perspectives on a patient-facing dashboard that visualizes patient reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Poor patient-clinician communication around patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is a barrier to the effective management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We aimed to develop an RA 'dashboard' that could facilitate conversations about PROs and that would be acceptable to a wide range of patients, including English and Spanish speakers and patients with adequate or limited health literacy.

METHODS

A diverse group of RA patients along with clinicians from two academic rheumatology clinics joined separate focus groups. We solicited feedback and made iterative changes to mock-ups of an RA dashboard that visualized PROs using a human-centred design process. We used the thematic analysis method to identify and characterize themes from the focus groups and used these insights to refine the dashboard.

RESULTS

We conducted six focus groups involving 25 RA patients and three groups with 11 clinicians. Patients and clinicians agreed that the dashboard could enhance communication about PROs and RA disease activity and could promote patient self-management. Patients varied in their (a) comprehension, (b) preferences for the display and features of the dashboard, and (c) desired uses for the dashboard. Clinicians expressed significant concerns about the logistics of using the dashboard in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

Using principles of human-centred design, we created an RA dashboard that was well-accepted among patients and clinicians. The ability to customize the data display is important for tailoring the dashboard to patients with diverse needs and preferences. Special attention should be given to feasibility concerns voiced by clinicians.

New outcome measures in perioperative care

Improvements in outcome measurement are needed to produce quality improvement in perioperative care. However, problems with the collection and use of outcome data persist in research and clinical practice. This is being addressed by several national programmes and initiatives to standardize and integrate outcome measurement. The use of different outcome measures is changing and there has been a transition towards patient-focused measures. Traditional measures of quality in perioperative care include mortality, morbidity and resource utilization measures. Patient-focused measures include patient-reported outcome measures and measures of patient experience. Each of these has advantages and disadvantages in different situations. The routine collection, analysis and dissemination of data relating to perioperative outcome is beneficial to patients, clinicians, hospitals, commissioners, regulators and researchers.

The Body-QoL(®): patient reported outcomes in body contouring surgery patients [corrected]

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to design a new patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument to measure patient satisfaction after body-contouring procedures such as liposculpture, abdominoplasty, body-lift, thigh-lift, and arm-lift.

METHODS

Phase 1a involved an extensive literature review, 16 in-depth patient interviews, and expert focus groups with 5 plastic surgeons to develop a conceptual framework for the outcomes deemed important for body image and preliminary PRO instruments. In phase 1b, the preliminary instrument was tested with a second independent sample of 29 patients with whom simple interviews were additionally performed. In the second sample, scale reliability was calculated.

RESULTS

In phase 1a, the domains identified for the conceptual framework included clothing and body image, sexual and affective life, self-image and self-esteem, social relationships, and physical symptoms. In phase 1b, the scale internal consistency was 91.5 %.

CONCLUSIONS

When psychometric evaluation is completed, the Body-Shape-Related Quality of Life instrument and its subscales will provide a reliable tool for plastic surgeons, researchers, and patients to use in measuring the impact and effectiveness of body-contouring procedures from the patient's perspective.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 . This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-B.