Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Perceived benefits and limitations of using patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice with individual patients: a systematic review of qualitative studies.
Campbell, Rachel; Ju, Angela; King, Madeleine T; Rutherford, Claudia.
Affiliation
  • Campbell R; The University of Sydney, Faculty of Science, School of Psychology, Sydney Quality of Life Office, Sydney, Australia. r.campbell@sydney.edu.au.
  • Ju A; The University of Sydney, Faculty of Science, School of Psychology, Sydney Quality of Life Office, Sydney, Australia.
  • King MT; The University of Sydney, Faculty of Science, School of Psychology, Sydney Quality of Life Office, Sydney, Australia.
  • Rutherford C; The University of Sydney, Faculty of Science, School of Psychology, Sydney Quality of Life Office, Sydney, Australia.
Qual Life Res ; 31(6): 1597-1620, 2022 Jun.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34580822
ABSTRACT

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.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Quality of Life / Patient Reported Outcome Measures Type of study: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Aspects: Patient_preference Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Qual Life Res Journal subject: REABILITACAO / TERAPEUTICA Year: 2022 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Australia

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Quality of Life / Patient Reported Outcome Measures Type of study: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Aspects: Patient_preference Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Qual Life Res Journal subject: REABILITACAO / TERAPEUTICA Year: 2022 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Australia