Patient-reported outcomes for monitoring substance use treatment: A systematic review of single-item measures.

IF 5.3 1区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Addiction Pub Date : 2026-04-22 DOI:10.1111/add.70424
Thomas J Reese, Hilary A Tindle, Justin Bachmann, Adam Wright, Jessica S Ancker, Carolyn M Audet, Mauli V Shah, Bryan D Steitz, Michael H Levin, Kristopher A Kast, David Marcovitz, Amanda von Horn, A Taylor Kelley, John F P Bridges
{"title":"Patient-reported outcomes for monitoring substance use treatment: A systematic review of single-item measures.","authors":"Thomas J Reese, Hilary A Tindle, Justin Bachmann, Adam Wright, Jessica S Ancker, Carolyn M Audet, Mauli V Shah, Bryan D Steitz, Michael H Levin, Kristopher A Kast, David Marcovitz, Amanda von Horn, A Taylor Kelley, John F P Bridges","doi":"10.1111/add.70424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Measurement-based care (MBC) is a structured approach using standardized, repeated assessments to monitor treatment progress and guide clinical decision-making. MBC improves outcomes for substance use treatment but can be time consuming due in part to lengthy assessment tools. Single-item, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) offer a more acceptable alternative for routine monitoring, yet their psychometric properties have not been systematically evaluated. We sought to identify constructs assessed by single-item PROMs in substance use treatment and critically appraise their validity, reliability and overall quality using standardized criteria.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review following COSMIN and PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO were searched from January 2005 to August 2025 for studies evaluating single-item PROMs in adults with substance use. We assessed psychometric properties, including content validity, test-retest reliability, construct validity, responsiveness and predictive validity using COSMIN criteria. Quality of evidence was assessed using a modified GRADE approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 4722 records screened, 35 studies met inclusion criteria, evaluating 68 single-item PROMs across 9 clinical constructs for more than 50 000 participants. Fifteen studies achieved an overall rating of sufficient measure properties and moderate-or-above level of evidence rating across domains. Test-retest reliability ranged approximately from Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.60-0.85; construct validity correlations approximately ranged r = 0.11-0.98. Predictive validity was strong for several measures, with odds ratios up to 7.3 for treatment readiness. Measures assessing craving, treatment readiness and self-efficacy demonstrated the most robust evidence and, in some cases, outperformed multi-item scales. However, over half of measures lacked empirically validated thresholds and responsiveness to change analyses, limiting clinical interpretability and treatment monitoring.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Single-item patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are pragmatic tools for implementing measurement-based care in substance use treatment, offering strong implementation feasibility and, in some cases, predictive performance comparable to longer instruments. PROMs lacking validated thresholds or responsiveness may be best used as complementary tools, whereas those with strong evidence and thresholds can support primary monitoring.</p>","PeriodicalId":109,"journal":{"name":"Addiction","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Addiction","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/add.70424","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Measurement-based care (MBC) is a structured approach using standardized, repeated assessments to monitor treatment progress and guide clinical decision-making. MBC improves outcomes for substance use treatment but can be time consuming due in part to lengthy assessment tools. Single-item, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) offer a more acceptable alternative for routine monitoring, yet their psychometric properties have not been systematically evaluated. We sought to identify constructs assessed by single-item PROMs in substance use treatment and critically appraise their validity, reliability and overall quality using standardized criteria.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review following COSMIN and PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO were searched from January 2005 to August 2025 for studies evaluating single-item PROMs in adults with substance use. We assessed psychometric properties, including content validity, test-retest reliability, construct validity, responsiveness and predictive validity using COSMIN criteria. Quality of evidence was assessed using a modified GRADE approach.

Results: Of 4722 records screened, 35 studies met inclusion criteria, evaluating 68 single-item PROMs across 9 clinical constructs for more than 50 000 participants. Fifteen studies achieved an overall rating of sufficient measure properties and moderate-or-above level of evidence rating across domains. Test-retest reliability ranged approximately from Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.60-0.85; construct validity correlations approximately ranged r = 0.11-0.98. Predictive validity was strong for several measures, with odds ratios up to 7.3 for treatment readiness. Measures assessing craving, treatment readiness and self-efficacy demonstrated the most robust evidence and, in some cases, outperformed multi-item scales. However, over half of measures lacked empirically validated thresholds and responsiveness to change analyses, limiting clinical interpretability and treatment monitoring.

Conclusions: Single-item patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are pragmatic tools for implementing measurement-based care in substance use treatment, offering strong implementation feasibility and, in some cases, predictive performance comparable to longer instruments. PROMs lacking validated thresholds or responsiveness may be best used as complementary tools, whereas those with strong evidence and thresholds can support primary monitoring.

监测药物使用治疗的患者报告结果:单项措施的系统回顾。
背景和目的:以测量为基础的护理(MBC)是一种使用标准化、重复评估来监测治疗进展和指导临床决策的结构化方法。MBC改善了药物使用治疗的结果,但部分由于评估工具冗长,可能会耗费时间。单项目,患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)为常规监测提供了更可接受的替代方案,但其心理测量特性尚未得到系统评估。我们试图确定在物质使用治疗中由单项目PROMs评估的构念,并使用标准化标准批判性地评估其效度、信度和整体质量。方法:我们按照COSMIN和PRISMA指南进行了系统综述。MEDLINE、Embase和PsycINFO检索了2005年1月至2025年8月期间评估成人药物使用单项prom的研究。我们使用COSMIN标准评估心理测量特性,包括内容效度、重测信度、结构效度、反应性和预测效度。使用改进的GRADE方法评估证据质量。结果:在筛选的4722项记录中,35项研究符合纳入标准,评估了9个临床结构中超过5万名参与者的68项单项目PROMs。15项研究获得了足够的测量属性的总体评级和中等或以上的证据评级。重测信度范围约为类内相关系数= 0.60-0.85;结构效度相关系数约为r = 0.11-0.98。一些测量的预测效度很强,治疗准备的比值比高达7.3。评估渴望、治疗准备和自我效能的测量显示出最有力的证据,在某些情况下,比多项目量表表现得更好。然而,超过一半的测量缺乏经验验证的阈值和对变化分析的响应性,限制了临床可解释性和治疗监测。结论:单项目患者报告结果测量(PROMs)是在药物使用治疗中实施基于测量的护理的实用工具,具有很强的实施可行性,在某些情况下,可与较长的仪器相媲美。缺乏经过验证的阈值或响应性的prom可能最好用作补充工具,而具有强有力证据和阈值的prom则可以支持主要监测。
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
Addiction
Addiction 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
10.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
319
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Addiction publishes peer-reviewed research reports on pharmacological and behavioural addictions, bringing together research conducted within many different disciplines. Its goal is to serve international and interdisciplinary scientific and clinical communication, to strengthen links between science and policy, and to stimulate and enhance the quality of debate. We seek submissions that are not only technically competent but are also original and contain information or ideas of fresh interest to our international readership. We seek to serve low- and middle-income (LAMI) countries as well as more economically developed countries. Addiction’s scope spans human experimental, epidemiological, social science, historical, clinical and policy research relating to addiction, primarily but not exclusively in the areas of psychoactive substance use and/or gambling. In addition to original research, the journal features editorials, commentaries, reviews, letters, and book reviews.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书