Understanding factors impacting patient-reported outcome measures integration in routine clinical practice: an umbrella review.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Quality of Life Research Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-18 DOI:10.1007/s11136-024-03728-7
Michael Anderson, Robin van Kessel, Eleanor Wood, Adam Stokes, Jon Fistein, Ian Porter, Elias Mossialos, Jose M Valderas
{"title":"Understanding factors impacting patient-reported outcome measures integration in routine clinical practice: an umbrella review.","authors":"Michael Anderson, Robin van Kessel, Eleanor Wood, Adam Stokes, Jon Fistein, Ian Porter, Elias Mossialos, Jose M Valderas","doi":"10.1007/s11136-024-03728-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":20748,"journal":{"name":"Quality of Life Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11452453/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality of Life Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03728-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

Abstract Image

了解影响将患者报告的结果测量纳入常规临床实践的因素:综述。
目的:患者报告结果测量法(PROMs)作为一种提高医疗质量的机制已获得广泛支持。我们旨在找出影响常规临床实践中 PROMs 实施策略的关键因素和障碍:方法:我们进行了一项总综述,以确定 2000 年 1 月至 2023 年 6 月期间探讨与将 PROMs 纳入常规临床实践相关的促进因素和障碍的综述。根据 "理论领域框架"(Theoretical Domains Framework),提取并按主题总结了有关主要促进因素和障碍的信息:结果:34 篇综述符合我们的纳入标准。已确定的综述强调了一些障碍,如临床医生和患者对 PROMs 的认识有限、临床医生和患者认为 PROMs 价值不高、PROMs 过于复杂或患者难以完成、PROMs 系统可用性差、PROMs 数据反馈延迟、临床医生对将 PROMs 用作绩效管理工具的担忧、患者对隐私和安全的担忧以及资源限制。推动因素包括分阶段实施、专业培训、实施前利益相关者的参与、明确的战略和目标、支持 PROMs 实施的 "变革倡导者"、应对 PROMs 提出的问题的系统,以及与患者路径的整合。在纸质或电子PROMs方面没有达成共识,但提供两种选择以减少数字扫盲的偏差,以及将PROMs整合到电子健康记录中,都是重要的促进因素:PROMs的可持续实施是一个复杂的过程,需要多方面的组织策略,包括培训和指导、必要的时间和资源、角色和责任,以及与患者和临床医生的协商。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Quality of Life Research
Quality of Life Research 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
8.60%
发文量
224
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Quality of Life Research is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the rapid communication of original research, theoretical articles and methodological reports related to the field of quality of life, in all the health sciences. The journal also offers editorials, literature, book and software reviews, correspondence and abstracts of conferences. Quality of life has become a prominent issue in biometry, philosophy, social science, clinical medicine, health services and outcomes research. The journal''s scope reflects the wide application of quality of life assessment and research in the biological and social sciences. All original work is subject to peer review for originality, scientific quality and relevance to a broad readership. This is an official journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信