Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Understanding factors impacting patient-reported outcome measures integration in routine clinical practice: an umbrella review.
Anderson, Michael; van Kessel, Robin; Wood, Eleanor; Stokes, Adam; Fistein, Jon; Porter, Ian; Mossialos, Elias; Valderas, Jose M.
Afiliação
  • Anderson M; Health Organisation, Policy, Economics (HOPE), Centre for Primary Care & Health Services Research, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. michael.anderson-3@manchester.ac.uk.
  • van Kessel R; LSE Health, Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. michael.anderson-3@manchester.ac.uk.
  • Wood E; LSE Health, Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
  • Stokes A; Department of International Health, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
  • Fistein J; LSE Health, Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
  • Porter I; Centre for Global Health, St Georges, University of London, London, UK.
  • Mossialos E; Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
  • Valderas JM; Health Services and Policy Research Group, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Qual Life Res ; 2024 Jul 18.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39023733
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

Patient-report outcome measures (PROMs) have gained widespread support as a mechanism to improve healthcare quality. We aimed to map out key enablers and barriers influencing PROMs implementation strategies in routine clinical practice.

METHODS:

An umbrella review was conducted to identify reviews exploring enablers and barriers related to the integration of PROMs in routine clinical practice from January 2000 to June 2023. Information on key enablers and barriers was extracted and summarised thematically according to the Theoretical Domains Framework.

RESULTS:

34 reviews met our criteria for inclusion. Identified reviews highlighted barriers such as limited PROMs awareness among clinicians and patients, perceived low value by clinicians and patients, PROMs that were too complex or difficult for patients to complete, poor usability of PROMs systems, delayed feedback of PROMs data, clinician concerns related to use of PROMs as a performance management tool, patient concerns regarding privacy and security, and resource constraints. Enablers encompassed phased implementation, professional training, stakeholder engagement prior to implementation, clear strategies and goals, 'change champions' to support PROMs implementation, systems to respond to issues raised by PROMs, and integration into patient pathways. No consensus favoured paper or electronic PROMs, yet offering both options to mitigate digital literacy bias and integrating PROMs into electronic health records emerged as important facilitators.

CONCLUSIONS:

The sustainable implementation of PROMs is a complex process that requires multicomponent organisational strategies covering training and guidance, necessary time and resources, roles and responsibilities, and consultation with patients and clinicians.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article