{"title":"Patient-reported outcomes in epilepsy: a case study exploring their usage and impact.","authors":"Simona Lattanzi, Angela La Neve","doi":"10.33393/grhta.2024.3020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to obtain insights from epilepsy specialists on the use of Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) measures and how they can affect the management of people with epilepsy and healthcare resource utilization.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The heads of two referral units for people with epilepsy at one tertiary care hospital were invited to respond to a structured survey.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Paper-based questionnaires and face-to-face interviews were the main modalities used to measure the quality of life of people with epilepsy. The Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory-31 (QOLIE-31), the Adverse Event Profile (adult centre), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, Short-Form Health Survey 36, PSY-Flex, SAFA and Child Behavior Checklist (paediatric centre) were the most used scales. There was consensus about the favourable impact of PRO upon patient management, disease management and measurement of the success of a treatment. Both respondents considered the PRO as important as other main indicators like efficacy and tolerability of the treatment. Lack of time, personnel and economic resources was identified as a barrier on the use of PRO. The PRO could reduce the number of visits, exams and treatments, and increase the time spent on each patient and the number of neuropsychological, psychological and rehabilitation services. The standardized use of PRO was considered useful and the increase in human resources was considered a priority to achieve this goal.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite the heterogeneity in the actual collection of PRO, there was a uniform perception about their role to optimize the care of people with epilepsy.</p>","PeriodicalId":12627,"journal":{"name":"Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11074701/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33393/grhta.2024.3020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to obtain insights from epilepsy specialists on the use of Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) measures and how they can affect the management of people with epilepsy and healthcare resource utilization.
Methods: The heads of two referral units for people with epilepsy at one tertiary care hospital were invited to respond to a structured survey.
Results: Paper-based questionnaires and face-to-face interviews were the main modalities used to measure the quality of life of people with epilepsy. The Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory-31 (QOLIE-31), the Adverse Event Profile (adult centre), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, Short-Form Health Survey 36, PSY-Flex, SAFA and Child Behavior Checklist (paediatric centre) were the most used scales. There was consensus about the favourable impact of PRO upon patient management, disease management and measurement of the success of a treatment. Both respondents considered the PRO as important as other main indicators like efficacy and tolerability of the treatment. Lack of time, personnel and economic resources was identified as a barrier on the use of PRO. The PRO could reduce the number of visits, exams and treatments, and increase the time spent on each patient and the number of neuropsychological, psychological and rehabilitation services. The standardized use of PRO was considered useful and the increase in human resources was considered a priority to achieve this goal.
Conclusions: Despite the heterogeneity in the actual collection of PRO, there was a uniform perception about their role to optimize the care of people with epilepsy.
背景:本研究旨在了解癫痫专家对患者报告结果(PRO)测量方法的使用情况,以及这些方法如何影响癫痫患者的管理和医疗资源的利用:本研究旨在了解癫痫专家对患者报告结果(PRO)测量方法的使用情况,以及这些方法如何影响癫痫患者的管理和医疗资源的利用:方法:邀请一家三甲医院的两个癫痫患者转诊科室的负责人对一项结构化调查做出答复:结果:纸质问卷和面对面访谈是衡量癫痫患者生活质量的主要方式。使用最多的量表是癫痫生活质量量表-31(QOLIE-31)、不良事件档案(成人中心)、广泛性焦虑症-7、短式健康调查 36、PSY-Flex、SAFA 和儿童行为检查表(儿科中心)。人们一致认为,PRO 对病人管理、疾病管理和衡量治疗成功与否都有积极影响。两个受访者都认为 PRO 与其他主要指标(如疗效和耐受性)一样重要。缺乏时间、人力和经济资源被认为是使用 PRO 的障碍。PRO 可以减少就诊、检查和治疗的次数,增加花在每个病人身上的时间以及神经心理、心理和康复服务的次数。标准化使用 PRO 被认为是有益的,而增加人力资源被认为是实现这一目标的优先事项:尽管在实际收集 PRO 方面存在差异,但人们对 PRO 在优化癫痫患者护理方面的作用有着一致的认识。
期刊介绍:
Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment (GRHTA) is a peer-reviewed, open access journal which aims to promote health technology assessment and economic evaluation, enabling choices among alternative therapeutical paths or procedures with different clinical and economic outcomes. GRHTA is a unique journal having three different editorial boards who focus on their respective geographical expertise.