nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

01.02.2009

Logistics of collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice: an overview and practical examples

verfasst von: Matthias Rose, Andrea Bezjak

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

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Interest in collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life (HRQOL), health status reports, and patient satisfaction is on the rise and practical aspects of collecting PROs in clinical practice are becoming more important. The purpose of this paper is to draw the attention to a number of issues relevant for a successful integration of PRO measures into the daily work flow of busy clinical settings.

Methods

The paper summarizes the results from a breakout session held at an ISOQOL special topic conference for PRO measures in clinical practice in 2007.

Results

Different methodologies of collecting PROs are discussed, and the support needed for each methodology is highlighted. The discussion is illustrated by practical real-life examples from early adaptors who administered paper–pencil, or electronic PRO assessments (ePRO) for more than a decade. The paper also reports about new experiences with more recent technological developments, such as SmartPens and Computer Adaptive Tests (CATs) in daily practice.

Conclusions

Methodological and logistical issues determine the resources needed for a successful integration of PRO measures into daily work flow procedures and influence significantly the usefulness of PRO data for clinical practice.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Greenhalgh, J., Long, A. F., & Flynn, R. (2005). The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: Lack of impact or lack of theory? Social Science and Medicine, 60, 833–843. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.06.022.PubMedCrossRef

Li, C., Friedman, B., Conwell, Y., & Fiscella, K. (2007). Validity of the patient health questionnaire 2 (PHQ-2) in identifying major depression in older people. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 55, 596–602. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01103.x.PubMedCrossRef

Ouimette, P., Wade, M., Prins, A., & Schohn, M. (2008). Identifying PTSD in primary care: Comparison of the primary care-PTSD screen (PC-PTSD) and the general health questionnaire-12 (GHQ). Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22, 337–343.PubMedCrossRef

Williams, J. W., Jr, Noel, P. H., Cordes, J. A., Ramirez, G., & Pignone, M. (2002). Is this patient clinically depressed? Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 1160–1170. doi:10.1001/jama.287.9.1160.PubMedCrossRef

Juniper, E. F., Bousquet, J., Abetz, L., & Bateman, E. D. (2006). Identifying ‘well-controlled’ and ‘not well-controlled’ asthma using the asthma control questionnaire. Respiratory Medicine, 100, 616–621. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2005.08.012.PubMedCrossRef

Atherton, P. J., & Sloan, J. A. (2006). Rising importance of patient-reported outcomes. The Lancet Oncology, 7, 883–884. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70914-7.PubMedCrossRef

Bren, L. (2006). The importance of patient-reported outcomes…it’s all about the patients. FDA Consumer, 40, 26–32.PubMed

van Andel, G., Bottomley, A., Fossa, S. D., Efficace, F., Coens, C., Guerif, S., et al. (2008). An international field study of the EORTC QLQ-PR25: A questionnaire for assessing the health-related quality of life of patients with prostate cancer. European Journal of Cancer, 44, 2418–2424. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.07.030.PubMedCrossRef

Chisholm, M. A., Williamson, G. M., Lance, C. E., & Mulloy, L. L. (2007). Predicting adherence to immunosuppressant therapy: A prospective analysis of the theory of planned behaviour. Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation, 22, 2339–2348. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfm149.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Luszczynska, A., Sarkar, Y., & Knoll, N. (2007). Received social support, self-efficacy, and finding benefits in disease as predictors of physical functioning and adherence to antiretroviral therapy. Patient Education and Counseling, 66, 37–42. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2006.10.002.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Efficace, F., Innominato, P. F., Bjarnason, G., Coens, C., Humblet, Y., Tumolo, S., et al. (2008). Validation of patient’s self-reported social functioning as an independent prognostic factor for survival in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: Results of an international study by the Chronotherapy Group of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 26, 2020–2026. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.12.3117.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Gotay, C. C., Kawamoto, C. T., Bottomley, A., & Efficace, F. (2008). The prognostic significance of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 26, 1355–1363. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.13.3439.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Rumsfeld, J. S., MaWhinney, S., McCarthy, M., Jr., Shroyer, A. L., VillaNueva, C. B., O’Brien, M., et al. (1999). Health-related quality of life as a predictor of mortality following coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Participants of the Department of veterans affairs cooperative study group on processes, structures, and outcomes of care in cardiac surgery. Journal of the American Medical Association, 281, 1298–1303. doi:10.1001/jama.281.14.1298.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Gwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L., & Shiffman, S. (2008). Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytic review. Value in Health, 11, 322–333. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Bettinville, A., Rabenberg, H., & Hansgen, K. D. (2005). An enquiry into the WILDE-Intelligence-Test (WIT): Comparability of application of the paper-pencil-version vs. the computer based application—an analysis based on data of the Leipzig Vocational Retraining Center. Die Rehabilitation, 44, 237–243. doi:10.1055/s-2005-866926.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Folk, L. C., March, J. Z., & Hurst, R. D. (2006). A comparison of linear, fixed-form computer-based testing versus traditional paper-and-pencil-format testing in veterinary medical education. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 33, 455–464. doi:10.3138/jvme.33.3.455.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Norman, G. J., Sallis, J. F., & Gaskins, R. (2005). Comparability and reliability of paper- and computer-based measures of psychosocial constructs for adolescent physical activity and sedentary behaviors. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76, 315–323.PubMed

18.

Webb, P. M., Zimet, G. D., Fortenberry, J. D., & Blythe, M. J. (1999). Comparability of a computer-assisted versus written method for collecting health behavior information from adolescent patients. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 24, 383–388. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(99)00005-1.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Heuser, J., & Geissner, E. (1998). Computerized version of the pain experience scale: A study of equivalence. Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 12, 205–208. doi:10.1007/s004820050143.

20.

Velikova, G., Wright, E. P., Smith, A. B., Cull, A., Gould, A., Forman, D., et al. (1999). Automated collection of quality-of-life data: A comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17, 998–1007.PubMed

21.

Cook, A. J., Roberts, D. A., Henderson, M. D., Van Winkle, L. C., Chastain, D. C., & Hamill-Ruth, R. J. (2004). Electronic pain questionnaires: A randomized, crossover comparison with paper questionnaires for chronic pain assessment. Pain, 110, 310–317. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2004.04.012.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Schaeren, S., Bischoff-Ferrari, H. A., Knupp, M., Dick, W., Huber, J. F., & Theiler, R. (2005). A computer touch-screen version of the North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument for the lumbar spine. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 87, 201–204. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.87B2.15548.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Bliven, B. D., Kaufman, S. E., & Spertus, J. A. (2001). Electronic collection of health-related quality of life data: Validity, time benefits, and patient preference. Quality of Life Research, 10, 15–22. doi:10.1023/A:1016740312904.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Burke, J. D., Burke, K. C., Baker, J. H., & Hillis, A. (1995). Test-retest reliability in psychiatric patients of the SF-36 Health Survey. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 5, 189–194.

25.

Kleinman, L., Leidy, N. K., Crawley, J., Bonomi, A., & Schoenfeld, P. (2001). A comparative trial of paper-and-pencil versus computer administration of the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) Questionnaire. Medical Care, 39, 181–189. doi:10.1097/00005650-200102000-00008.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Ryan, J. M., Corry, J. R., Attewell, R., & Smithson, M. J. (2002). A comparison of an electronic version of the SF-36 General Health Questionnaire to the standard paper version. Quality of Life Research, 11, 19–26. doi:10.1023/A:1014415709997.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Saleh, K. J., Radosevich, D. M., Kassim, R. A., Moussa, M., Dykes, D., Bottolfson, H., et al. (2002). Comparison of commonly used orthopaedic outcome measures using palm-top computers and paper surveys. Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 20, 1146–1151. doi:10.1016/S0736-0266(02)00059-1.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Wilson, A. S., Kitas, G. D., Carruthers, D. M., Reay, C., Skan, J., Harris, S., et al. (2002). Computerized information-gathering in specialist rheumatology clinics: An initial evaluation of an electronic version of the Short Form 36. Rheumatology (Oxford England), 41, 268–273. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/41.3.268.CrossRef

29.

Beebe, T. J., Harrison, P. A., McRae, J. A., & Evans, J. A. (2006). The effects of data collection mode and disclosure on adolescent reporting of health behavior. Social Science Computer Review, 24, 476–488. doi:10.1177/0894439306288690.CrossRef

30.

DeAngelis, S. (2000). Equivalency of computer-based and paper-and-pencil testing. Journal of Allied Health, 29, 161–164.PubMed

31.

Duncan, P., Reker, D., Kwon, S., Lai, S. M., Studenski, S., Perera, S., et al. (2005). Measuring stroke impact with the Stroke Impact Scale: Telephone versus mail administration in veterans with stroke. Medical Care, 43, 507–515. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000160421.42858.de.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Hepner, K. A., Brown, J. A., & Hays, R. D. (2005). Comparison of mail and telephone in assessing patient experiences in receiving care from medical group practices. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 28, 377–389. doi:10.1177/0163278705281074.CrossRef

33.

de Vries, H., Elliott, M. N., Hepner, K. A., Keller, S. D., & Hays, R. D. (2005). Equivalence of mail and telephone responses to the CAHPS Hospital Survey. Health Services Research, 40, 2120–2139. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00479.x.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Powers, J. R., Mishra, G., & Young, A. F. (2005). Differences in mail and telephone responses to self-rated health: Use of multiple imputation in correcting for response bias. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 29, 149–154. doi:10.1111/j.1467-842X.2005.tb00065.x.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Beebe, T. J., Mcrae, J. A., Harrison, P. A., Davern, M. E., & Quinlan, K. B. (2005). Mail surveys resulted in more reports of substance use than telephone surveys. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, 421–424. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.007.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Kraus, L., & Augustin, R. (2001). Measuring alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems: Comparison of responses from self-administered questionnaires and telephone interviews. Addiction (Abingdon, England), 96, 459–471. doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.9634599.x.

37.

Ravens-Sieberer, U., Erhart, M., Wetzel, R., Krugel, A., & Brambosch, A. (2008). Phone respondents reported less mental health problems whereas mail interviewee gave higher physical health ratings. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 1056–1060. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.12.003.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Rodriguez, H. P., von Glahn, T., Rogers, W. H., Chang, H., Fanjiang, G., & Safran, D. G. (2006). Evaluating patients’ experiences with individual physicians: A randomized trial of mail, Internet, and interactive voice response telephone administration of surveys. Medical Care, 44, 167–174. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000196961.00933.8e.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Krueger, A. B., & Stone, A. A. (2008). Assessment of pain: A community-based diary survey in the USA. Lancet, 371, 1519–1525. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60656-X.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Meara, A. (2008). Director of medical management at the CMO of the Montefiori Medical Center. Ref Type: Personal Communication.

41.

Bischoff-Ferrari, H. A., Vondechend, M., Bellamy, N., & Theiler, R. (2005). Validation and patient acceptance of a computer touch screen version of the WOMAC 3.1 osteoarthritis index. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 64, 80–84. doi:10.1136/ard.2003.019307.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Cook, I. A., Balasubramani, G. K., Eng, H., Friedman, E., Young, E. A., Martin, J., et al. (2007). Electronic source materials in clinical research: Acceptability and validity of symptom self-rating in major depressive disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 41, 737–743. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2006.07.015.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Kable, S., Henry, R., Sanson-Fisher, R., Ireland, M., & Cockburn, J. (2006). Is a computer questionnaire of childhood asthma acceptable in general practice? Family Practice, 23, 88–90. doi:10.1093/fampra/cmi079.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Thumboo, J., Wee, H. L., Cheung, Y. B., Machin, D., Luo, N., & Fong, K. Y. (2006). Development of a smiling touchscreen multimedia program for HRQoL assessment in subjects with varying levels of literacy. Value in Health, 9, 312–319. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00120.x.PubMedCrossRef

45.

Williams, C. A., Templin, T., & Mosley-Williams, A. D. (2004). Usability of a computer-assisted interview system for the unaided self-entry of patient data in an urban rheumatology clinic. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 11, 249–259. doi:10.1197/jamia.M1527.PubMedCrossRef

46.

Carr, A. J., Thompson, P. W., & Kirwan, J. R. (1996). Quality of life measures. British Journal of Rheumatology, 35, 275–281. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/35.3.275.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Bezjak, A., Ng, P., Skeel, R., DePetrillo, A. D., Comis, R., & Taylor, K. M. (2001). Oncologists’ use of quality of life information: Results of a survey of eastern cooperative oncology group physicians. Quality of Life Research, 10, 1–13. doi:10.1023/A:1016692804023.PubMedCrossRef

48.

Till, J. E. (1994). Measuring quality of life: Apparent benefits, potential concerns. The Canadian Journal of Oncology, 4, 243–248.PubMed

49.

Taylor, K. M., Macdonald, K. G., Bezjak, A., Ng, P., & DePetrillo, A. D. (1996). Physicians’ perspective on quality of life: An exploratory study of oncologists. Quality of Life Research, 5, 5–14. doi:10.1007/BF00435963.PubMedCrossRef

50.

Katon, W., Von Korff, M., Lin, E., Walker, E., Simon, G. E., Bush, T., et al. (1995). Collaborative management to achieve treatment guidelines. Impact on depression in primary care. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 1026–1031. doi:10.1001/jama.273.13.1026.PubMedCrossRef

51.

Katz, S. J., Kessler, R. C., Lin, E., & Wells, K. B. (1998). Medication management of depression in the United States and Ontario. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 13, 77–86. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.1998.00022.x.PubMedCrossRef

52.

Regier, D. A., Narrow, W. E., Rae, D. S., Manderscheid, R. W., Locke, B. Z., & Goodwin, F. K. (1993). The de facto US mental and addictive disorders service system. Epidemiologic catchment area prospective 1-year prevalence rates of disorders and services. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 85–94.PubMed

53.

Rose, M., Hess, V., Horhold, M., Brahler, E., & Klapp, B. F. (1999). Mobile computer-assisted psychometric diagnosis. Economic advantages and results on test stability. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, Medizinische Psychologie, 49, 202–207.PubMed

54.

Greenhalgh, J., & Meadows, K. (1999). The effectiveness of the use of patient-based measures of health in routine practice in improving the process and outcomes of patient care: A literature review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 5, 401–416. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2753.1999.00209.x.PubMedCrossRef

55.

Espallargues, M., Valderas, J. M., & Alonso, J. (2000). Provision of feedback on perceived health status to health care professionals: A systematic review of its impact. Medical Care, 38, 175–186. doi:10.1097/00005650-200002000-00007.PubMedCrossRef

56.

Donaldson, M. S. (2004). Taking stock of health-related quality-of-life measurement in oncology practice in the United States. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs, 33, 155–167. doi:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgh017.PubMedCrossRef

57.

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. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(23), 3027–3034. doi:10.1001/jama.288.23.3027.CrossRef

58.

Rubenstein, L. V., McCoy, J. M., Cope, D. W., Barrett, P. A., Hirsch, S. H., Messer, K. S., et al. (1995). Improving patient quality of life with feedback to physicians about functional status. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 10, 607–614. doi:10.1007/BF02602744.PubMedCrossRef

59.

Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., Brown, P. M., Lynch, P., Brown, J. M., 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, 714–724. doi:10.1200/JCO.2004.06.078.PubMedCrossRef

60.

Ware, J. E., Snow, K. K., Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (1993). SF-36® Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: New England Medical Center, The Health Institute.

61.

Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2002). The PHQ-15: Validity of a new measure for evaluating the severity of somatic symptoms. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64, 258–266.PubMed

62.

Kroenke, K., Strine, T. W., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B., Berry, J. T., & Mokdad, A. H. (2008). The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population. Journal of Affective Disorders (in press).

63.

Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2003). The patient health questionnaire-2: Validity of a two-item depression screener. Medical Care, 41(11), 1284–1292. doi:10.1097/01.MLR.0000093487.78664.3C.PubMedCrossRef

64.

McHorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995). Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: Are available health status surveys adequate? Quality of Life Research, 4, 293–307. doi:10.1007/BF01593882.PubMedCrossRef

65.

Embretson, S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

66.

Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. London: Sage Publications.

67.

Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement. Psychological Assessment, 8, 341–349. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.341.CrossRef

68.

Wainer, H., Dorans, N., & Flaugher, R. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

69.

Wainer, H., & Mislevy, R. J. (2000). Item response theory, item calibration, and proficiency estimation. In H. Wainer, N. J. Dorans, R. Flaugher, B. F. Green, R. J. Mislevy, L. Steinberg, & D. Thissen (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (2nd ed., pp. 61–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

70.

Rose, M., Bjorner, J., Becker, J., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. (2008). Development of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement System (PROMIS). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 17–33. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.025.PubMedCrossRef

71.

Bjorner, J. B., Chang, C. H., Thissen, D., & Reeve, B. B. (2007). Developing tailored instruments: Item banking and computerized adaptive assessment. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 95–108. doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9168-6.PubMedCrossRef

72.

Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., et al. (2007). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical Care, 45, S3–S11. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55.PubMedCrossRef

73.

Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45, S22–S31. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000250483.85507.04.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Logistics of collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice: an overview and practical examples
verfasst von: Matthias Rose
Andrea Bezjak
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/s11136-008-9436-0

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2009

Psychological insulin resistance: patient beliefs and implications for diabetes management

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

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

Importance of patient-centered care in enhancing patient well-being: a cancer survivor’s perspective

Quality of life and self-esteem of persons with paraplegia living in São Paulo, Brazil

Impact of family income and sickle cell disease on the health-related quality of life of children