Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Quality of Life Research
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research 1/2009

01.02.2009

Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: challenges and opportunities

verfasst von: Kathleen N. Lohr, Bradley J. Zebrack

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 1/2009

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Introduce and explore issues at an international conference about the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice.

Methods

Review of salient literature, clinical and personal experiences, conference presentations and discussions, and post-conference comments from outside experts.

Results

PROs (information from patients about a health condition and its management) have been assessed through self-reports for at least four decades. Traditional applications are in clinical and health services research. Uses in clinical practice, although increasing, are less common and more challenging. PROs can enhance the understanding of patients’ experiences and responses to therapy and inform clinical practice.

Conclusions

We pose and discuss four main questions: (1) Will clinicians accept PRO measures? (2) Will clinicians use PRO measures? (3) Will measuring PROs actually improve those outcomes? (4) Will PROs be perceived as having other, less salutary purposes? A patient-centered perspective on PRO measurement presents issues about the extent to which PROs can accurately capture patient experiences and assess psychosocial and environmental factors that influence communication with clinicians and eventual outcomes. We end with comments about the intersection of PROs and bioethics, noting contributions that PROs may make to beneficence, patient autonomy, and distributive justice.
Literatur
1.
Aaronson, N. K., & Snyder, C. (2008). Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: Proceedings of an international society of quality of life research conference. Quality of Life Research. doi:10.​1007/​s11136-008-9422-6.
2.
3.
Donaldson, M. S. (2008). Taking PROs and patient-centered care seriously: Incremental and disruptive ideas for incorporating PROs in oncology practice. Quality of Life Research. doi:10.​1007/​s11136-008-9414-6.
4.
Fayers, P. M. (2008). Evaluating the effectiveness of using PROs in clinical practice: A role for cluster-randomised trials. Quality of Life Research. doi:10.​1007/​s11136-008-9391-9.
5.
Feldman-Stewart, D., & Brundage, M. D. (2008). A conceptual framework for patient-provider communication: A tool in the PRO research tool box. Quality of Life Research. doi:10.​1007/​s11136-008-9417-3.PubMed
6.
7.
Ware, J. E. Jr. (1976). Scales for measuring general health perceptions. Health Services Research, 11(4), 396–415.PubMed
8.
Ware, J. E. Jr., Brook, R. H., Davies, A. R., & Lohr, K. N. (1981). Choosing measures of health status for individuals in general populations. American Journal of Public Health, 71(6), 620–625.PubMedCrossRef
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Guyatt, G. H., Feeny, D. H., & Patrick, D. L. (1993). Measuring health-related quality of life. Annals of Internal Medicine, 118(8), 622–629.PubMed
17.
18.
McHorney, C. A. (2003). Ten recommendations for advancing patient-centered outcomes measurement for older persons. Annals of Internal Medicine, 139(5 Pt 2), 403–409.PubMed
19.
McDowell, I., & Newell, C. (1996). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
20.
Bowling, A. (2001). Measuring disease: A review of disease-specific quality of life measurement scales (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
21.
Bowling, A. (Ed.). (2004). Measuring health: A review of quality of life measurement scales. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
22.
Lipscomb, J., Gotay, C. C., & Snyder, C. (2005). Outcomes assessment in cancer: Measures, methods, and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Australian Centre on Quality of Life. Bibliography. 2007.
24.
Sloan, J. A., Halyard, M. Y., Frost, M. H., et al.; Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. (2007). The Mayo Clinic manuscript series relative to the discussion, dissemination, and operationalization of the Food and Drug Administration guidance on patient-reported outcomes. Value in Health, 10(Suppl), S59–S63. doi:10.​1111/​j.​1524-4733.​2007.​00267.​x.PubMedCrossRef
25.
26.
27.
28.
Bergner, M. (1986). Functional health assessments: Are they ready for use in clinical practice? The Journal of Family Practice, 23(5), 423–424.PubMed
29.
30.
McHorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995). Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: Are available health status surveys adequate? Quality of Life Research, 4(4), 293–307. doi:10.​1007/​BF01593882.PubMedCrossRef
31.
32.
Frost, M. H., Bonomi, A. E., Cappelleri, J. C., Schunemann, H. J., Moynihan, T. J., & Aaronson, N. K. (2007). Applying quality-of-life data formally and systematically into clinical practice. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 82(10), 1214–1228.PubMedCrossRef
33.
34.
35.
Wasson, J., Keller, A., Rubenstein, L., Hays, R., Nelson, E., & Johnson, D. (1992). Benefits and obstacles of health status assessment in ambulatory settings. The clinician’s point of view. The Dartmouth Primary Care COOP Project. Medical Care, 30(5 Suppl), MS42–MS49. doi:10.​1097/​00005650-199205001-00004.PubMedCrossRef
36.
37.
Feinstein, A. R. (1983). An additional basic science for clinical medicine: IV. The development of clinimetrics. Annals of Internal Medicine, 99(6), 843–848.PubMed
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
Detmar, S. B., Muller, M. J., Schornagel, J. H., Wever, L. D., & Aaronson, N. K. (2002). Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient–physician communication: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(23), 3027–3034. doi:10.​1001/​jama.​288.​23.​3027.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Velikova, G., Brown, J. M., Smith, A. B., & Selby, P. J. (2002). Computer-based quality of life questionnaires may contribute to doctor–patient interactions in oncology. British Journal of Cancer, 86(1), 51–59. doi:10.​1038/​sj.​bjc.​6600001.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., et al. (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(4), 714–724. doi:10.​1200/​JCO.​2004.​06.​078.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Detmar, S. B., Aaronson, N. K., Wever, L. D., Muller, M., & Schornagel, J. H. (2000). How are you feeling? Who wants to know? Patients’ and oncologists’ preferences for discussing health-related quality-of-life issues. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 18(18), 3295–3301.PubMed
46.
Shin, H. G., & Bruno, R. (2003). Language use and English-speaking ability: 2000, Census 2000 brief. US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau.
47.
US Census Bureau (2006). 2004 American Community Survey: Nativity by language spoken at home by ability to speak English for the population age 5 years and over. US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau.
48.
Leigh, S. (1994). Cancer survivorship: A consumer movement. Seminars in Oncology, 21(6), 783–786.PubMed
49.
Stovall, E. L. (1996). Practice guidelines: Patients’ perspective. Oncology (Williston Park), 10(11 Suppl), 255–260.
50.
Schwarz, N., Strack, F., Hippler, H.-J., & Bishop, G. (2006). The impact of administration mode on response effects in survey measurement. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 193–212. doi:10.​1002/​acp.​2350050304.CrossRef
51.
52.
Zoppi, K. A., & Epstein, R. M. (2002). Interviewing in medical settings. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 355–384). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
53.
54.
Briggs, C. L. (2002). Interviewing, power/knowledge, and social inequality. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 911–922). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
55.
Hill, M. E. (2002). Race of the interviewer and perception of skin color: Evidence from the multi-city study of urban inequality. American Sociological Review, 67(1), 99–108. doi:10.​2307/​3088935.CrossRef
56.
Pickery, J., Loosveldt, G., & Carlton, A. (2001). The effects of interviewer and respondent characteristics on response behavior in panel surveys. Sociological Methods & Research, 29(4), 509–523. doi:10.​1177/​0049124101029004​004.CrossRef
57.
Del Boca, F. K., & Noll, J. A. (2000). Truth or consequences: The validity of self-report data in health services research on addictions. Addiction, 95(Suppl 3), S347–S360.PubMed
58.
59.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
60.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
61.
Institute of Medicine. (2008). Cancer care for the whole patient: Meeting psychosocial health needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
62.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2006). National healthcare disparities report, 2006. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
63.
Povar, G. J. (1991). What does “quality” mean: Critical ethical issues for quality assurance. In R. H. Palmer, A. Donabedian, & G. J. Povar (Eds.), Striving for quality in health care. An inquiry into policy and practice. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press.
Metadaten
Titel
Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: challenges and opportunities
verfasst von
Kathleen N. Lohr
Bradley J. Zebrack
Publikationsdatum
01.02.2009
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 1/2009
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9413-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2009

Quality of Life Research 1/2009 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status

OriginalPaper

Comparison between exploratory factor-analytic and SEM-based approaches to constructing SF-36 summary scores

OriginalPaper

Updated U.S. population standard for the Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12)

OriginalPaper

Neuroticism and extraversion in association with quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease

OriginalPaper

Disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires for heart failure: a systematic review with meta-analyses

ReviewPaper

Psychological insulin resistance: patient beliefs and implications for diabetes management