定性研究的系统性综述,探讨矫形外科医生参与患者报告结果测量数据的障碍和促进因素。

IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Emma L Heath, Ian A Harris, Lorena Romero, Ilana N Ackerman
{"title":"定性研究的系统性综述,探讨矫形外科医生参与患者报告结果测量数据的障碍和促进因素。","authors":"Emma L Heath, Ian A Harris, Lorena Romero, Ilana N Ackerman","doi":"10.1186/s41687-024-00820-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Orthopaedic surgeon engagement with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data has not been comprehensively evaluated, despite increasing uptake of orthopaedic PROMs programmes globally. The aim of this review was to systematically identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative evidence on barriers and facilitators to orthopaedic surgeons' engagement with PROMs data and their use of these data to support clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE CENTRAL, PSYCINFO, CINAHL and EMCARE) were searched from January 2000-March 2024 to identify potentially eligible qualitative studies. Established systematic review methods were used for screening and data extraction, applying PRISMA guidelines. Quality assessment was undertaken using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool for qualitative research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies were eligible for inclusion; of these, five studies were qualitative and three studies were mixed-method designs incorporating a qualitative component. Three studies were specific to orthopaedic surgeons and the remaining five studies comprised of mixed samples of health professionals including orthopaedic surgeons. Only one study was classified as being of high methodological quality. Key barrier themes for orthopaedic surgeons were logistical issues, difficulty interpreting and understanding PROMs, and scepticism of the value of PROMs in clinical care. Key enabler themes included improvements to PROMs infrastructure, surgeon education around the potential value, uses and interpretation of PROMs data, aggregate reporting of PROMs data and early involvement of surgeons in the planning and development of PROM systems.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While these studies highlight some practical considerations and opportunities that can be addressed through clinician education, there is little high-quality evidence on factors that influence orthopaedic surgeon engagement with PROMs data. Robust qualitative research is needed to better inform tailored support and assist surgeons in integrating PROMs data within orthopaedic care.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"8 1","pages":"144"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11655713/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review of qualitative studies examining barriers and facilitators to orthopaedic surgeon engagement with patient-reported outcome measures data.\",\"authors\":\"Emma L Heath, Ian A Harris, Lorena Romero, Ilana N Ackerman\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41687-024-00820-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Orthopaedic surgeon engagement with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data has not been comprehensively evaluated, despite increasing uptake of orthopaedic PROMs programmes globally. The aim of this review was to systematically identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative evidence on barriers and facilitators to orthopaedic surgeons' engagement with PROMs data and their use of these data to support clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE CENTRAL, PSYCINFO, CINAHL and EMCARE) were searched from January 2000-March 2024 to identify potentially eligible qualitative studies. Established systematic review methods were used for screening and data extraction, applying PRISMA guidelines. Quality assessment was undertaken using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool for qualitative research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies were eligible for inclusion; of these, five studies were qualitative and three studies were mixed-method designs incorporating a qualitative component. Three studies were specific to orthopaedic surgeons and the remaining five studies comprised of mixed samples of health professionals including orthopaedic surgeons. Only one study was classified as being of high methodological quality. Key barrier themes for orthopaedic surgeons were logistical issues, difficulty interpreting and understanding PROMs, and scepticism of the value of PROMs in clinical care. Key enabler themes included improvements to PROMs infrastructure, surgeon education around the potential value, uses and interpretation of PROMs data, aggregate reporting of PROMs data and early involvement of surgeons in the planning and development of PROM systems.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While these studies highlight some practical considerations and opportunities that can be addressed through clinician education, there is little high-quality evidence on factors that influence orthopaedic surgeon engagement with PROMs data. Robust qualitative research is needed to better inform tailored support and assist surgeons in integrating PROMs data within orthopaedic care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36660,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"144\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11655713/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00820-x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00820-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管全球范围内越来越多地采用骨科PROMs项目,但骨科医生参与患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)数据尚未得到全面评估。本综述的目的是系统地识别、评估和综合定性证据,这些证据是骨科医生使用PROMs数据的障碍和促进因素,以及他们使用这些数据来支持临床实践。方法:检索2000年1月至2024年3月期间的六个数据库(MEDLINE、EMBASE、COCHRANE CENTRAL、PSYCINFO、CINAHL和EMCARE),以确定可能符合条件的定性研究。采用已建立的系统评价方法进行筛选和数据提取,并应用PRISMA指南。使用乔安娜布里格斯研究所的定性研究工具进行质量评估。结果:8项研究符合纳入条件;其中,5项研究是定性的,3项研究是结合定性成分的混合方法设计。3项研究是针对骨科医生的,其余5项研究由包括骨科医生在内的卫生专业人员的混合样本组成。只有一项研究被归类为高方法学质量。骨科医生的主要障碍主题是后勤问题,难以解释和理解PROMs,以及对PROMs在临床护理中的价值的怀疑。关键的推动主题包括改进PROM基础设施,围绕潜在价值的外科医生教育,PROM数据的使用和解释,PROM数据的汇总报告以及外科医生早期参与PROM系统的规划和开发。结论:虽然这些研究强调了一些可以通过临床医生教育来解决的实际问题和机会,但关于影响骨科医生参与PROMs数据的因素的高质量证据很少。需要强有力的定性研究来更好地为量身定制的支持提供信息,并协助外科医生在骨科护理中整合PROMs数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A systematic review of qualitative studies examining barriers and facilitators to orthopaedic surgeon engagement with patient-reported outcome measures data.

Background: Orthopaedic surgeon engagement with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data has not been comprehensively evaluated, despite increasing uptake of orthopaedic PROMs programmes globally. The aim of this review was to systematically identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative evidence on barriers and facilitators to orthopaedic surgeons' engagement with PROMs data and their use of these data to support clinical practice.

Methods: Six databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE CENTRAL, PSYCINFO, CINAHL and EMCARE) were searched from January 2000-March 2024 to identify potentially eligible qualitative studies. Established systematic review methods were used for screening and data extraction, applying PRISMA guidelines. Quality assessment was undertaken using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool for qualitative research.

Results: Eight studies were eligible for inclusion; of these, five studies were qualitative and three studies were mixed-method designs incorporating a qualitative component. Three studies were specific to orthopaedic surgeons and the remaining five studies comprised of mixed samples of health professionals including orthopaedic surgeons. Only one study was classified as being of high methodological quality. Key barrier themes for orthopaedic surgeons were logistical issues, difficulty interpreting and understanding PROMs, and scepticism of the value of PROMs in clinical care. Key enabler themes included improvements to PROMs infrastructure, surgeon education around the potential value, uses and interpretation of PROMs data, aggregate reporting of PROMs data and early involvement of surgeons in the planning and development of PROM systems.

Conclusion: While these studies highlight some practical considerations and opportunities that can be addressed through clinician education, there is little high-quality evidence on factors that influence orthopaedic surgeon engagement with PROMs data. Robust qualitative research is needed to better inform tailored support and assist surgeons in integrating PROMs data within orthopaedic care.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
120
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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