Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) to Support Adherence to Falls Prevention Clinic Recommendations: A Qualitative Study

Systematic review on the frequency and quality of reporting patient and public involvement in patient safety research

BACKGROUND

In recent years, patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has significantly increased; however, the reporting of PPI remains poor. The Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) was developed to enhance the quality and consistency of PPI reporting. The objective of this systematic review is to identify the frequency and quality of PPI reporting in patient safety (PS) research using the GRIPP2 checklist.

METHODS

Searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from 2018 to December, 2023. Studies on PPI in PS research were included. We included empirical qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, and case studies. Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals in English were included. The quality of PPI reporting was assessed using the short form of the (GRIPP2-SF) checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 8561 studies were retrieved from database searches, updates, and reference checks, of which 82 met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Major PS topics were related to medication safety, general PS, and fall prevention. Patient representatives, advocates, patient advisory groups, patients, service users, and health consumers were the most involved. The main involvement across the studies was in commenting on or developing research materials. Only 6.1% (n = 5) of the studies reported PPI as per the GRIPP2 checklist. Regarding the quality of reporting following the GRIPP2-SF criteria, our findings show sub-optimal reporting mainly due to failures in: critically reflecting on PPI in the study; reporting the aim of PPI in the study; and reporting the extent to which PPI influenced the study overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows a low frequency of PPI reporting in PS research using the GRIPP2 checklist. Furthermore, it reveals a sub-optimal quality in PPI reporting following GRIPP2-SF items. Researchers, funders, publishers, and journals need to promote consistent and transparent PPI reporting following internationally developed reporting guidelines such as the GRIPP2. Evidence-based guidelines for reporting PPI should be encouraged and supported as it helps future researchers to plan and report PPI more effectively.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023450715).

Perceived benefits and limitations of using patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice with individual patients: a systematic review of qualitative studies

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in clinical settings to inform individual patient care. In-depth understanding of end-users' experiences may help identify factors that promote or hinder their use in clinical decision-making. We aimed to examine stakeholder perceptions of the utility of using PROMs in clinical practice based on real-life experience.

METHODS

Systematic review searching Medline, Embase and PsychINFO from inception to May 2021. Qualitative studies examining patients' and/or clinicians' experiences of using PROMs in clinical settings were included. Study screening and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Qualitative data from included studies was analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Of 2388 abstracts retrieved, 52 articles reporting 50 studies met eligibility. Five key benefits were identified: (1) promotes active patient involvement (enables goal setting and discussion of sensitive topics); (2) enhances the focus of consultations (prioritizes patient needs); (3) improves quality of care (enables tailored, holistic care and prompts action); (4) enables standardized monitoring of patient outcomes; and (5) enhances the patient-clinician relationship (provides reassurance). Perceived limitations included the capacity of PROMs to shift the focus of consultations; inaccurately estimate problems; raise unrealistic expectations for care; inhibit patient-clinician interaction; lack clinically meaningful information; and not be suitable for all patients.

CONCLUSION

Both patients and clinicians reported benefits of using PROMs across diverse health conditions and clinical settings, but also highlighted several limitations. These limitations shed some light on why PROM use may not always improve patient outcomes and provide considerations for the design and implementation of future PROM initiatives.