Nicholas J Parr, Sarah Young, Becky Baltich Nelson
{"title":"Assessing Whole-Person Outcomes During Routine Clinical Care: A Rapid Scoping Review.","authors":"Nicholas J Parr, Sarah Young, Becky Baltich Nelson","doi":"10.1097/MLR.0000000000002046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify and describe research conducted on the implementation, validity, and utility of whole-person outcome measures administered during routine inpatient or outpatient care.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Incorporating information about patients' overall health, health-related quality of life, and global well-being into health care delivery has the potential to increase referral rates, enhance doctor-patient communication, and improve the detection of untreated symptoms. Assessment of these whole-person outcomes during routine clinical care is of broad interest to health care providers and health systems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We employed a scoping review design and searched Ovid MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, and CINAHL for relevant English-language primary studies and systematic reviews published through November 13, 2023. Screening for inclusion and data abstraction were conducted by 1 investigator then checked by another. Study risks of bias and the strength of available evidence were not assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1327 potentially relevant publications, 44 primary studies and 5 systematic reviews met eligibility criteria. Assessment of global well-being was comparatively less researched than overall health or health-related quality of life. Available research provided a range of perspectives on the performance, feasibility, acceptability, implementation, and clinical utility of whole-person outcome measures. No studies reported change in patient health or disease outcomes attributed to whole person outcome assessment (directly or through changes to care delivery).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Currently available evidence provides insights about the performance and implementation of whole-person outcome measures during routine clinical care, but no studies are available that examine the impact of assessing whole-person outcomes on clinical or patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11548827/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"88","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000002046","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To identify and describe research conducted on the implementation, validity, and utility of whole-person outcome measures administered during routine inpatient or outpatient care.
Background: Incorporating information about patients' overall health, health-related quality of life, and global well-being into health care delivery has the potential to increase referral rates, enhance doctor-patient communication, and improve the detection of untreated symptoms. Assessment of these whole-person outcomes during routine clinical care is of broad interest to health care providers and health systems.
Methods: We employed a scoping review design and searched Ovid MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, and CINAHL for relevant English-language primary studies and systematic reviews published through November 13, 2023. Screening for inclusion and data abstraction were conducted by 1 investigator then checked by another. Study risks of bias and the strength of available evidence were not assessed.
Results: Of 1327 potentially relevant publications, 44 primary studies and 5 systematic reviews met eligibility criteria. Assessment of global well-being was comparatively less researched than overall health or health-related quality of life. Available research provided a range of perspectives on the performance, feasibility, acceptability, implementation, and clinical utility of whole-person outcome measures. No studies reported change in patient health or disease outcomes attributed to whole person outcome assessment (directly or through changes to care delivery).
Conclusions: Currently available evidence provides insights about the performance and implementation of whole-person outcome measures during routine clinical care, but no studies are available that examine the impact of assessing whole-person outcomes on clinical or patient outcomes.