Patient-reported outcomes (PROs): putting the patient perspective in patient-centered outcomes research

Electronic-Based Patient-Reported Outcomes: Willingness, Needs, and Barriers in Adjuvant and Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients

Background

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) play an increasingly important role as an adjunct to clinical outcome parameters in measuring health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In fact, PROs are already the accepted gold standard for collecting data about patients’ subjective perception of their own state of health. Currently, paper-based surveys of PRO still predominate; however, knowledge regarding the feasibility of and barriers to electronic-based PRO (ePRO) acceptance remains limited.

Objective

The objective of this trial was to analyze the willingness, specific needs, and barriers of adjuvant breast cancer (aBC) and metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients in nonexposed (no exposure to electronic assessment) and exposed (after exposure to electronic assessment decision, whether a tablet-based questionnaire is favored) settings before implementing digital ePRO assessment in relation to health status. We also investigated whether providing support can increase the patients’ willingness to participate in such programs.

Methods

The nonexposed patients only answered a paper-based questionnaire, whereas the exposed patients filled out both paper- and tablet-based questionnaires. The assessment comprised socioeconomic variables, HRQoL, preexisting technical skills, general attitude toward electronic-based surveys, and potential barriers in relation to health status. Furthermore, nonexposed patients were asked about the existing need for technological support structures. In the course of data evaluation, we performed a frequency analysis as well as chi-square tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Subsequently, relative risks analysis, univariate categorical regression (CATREG), and mediation analyses (Hayes’ bias-corrected bootstrap) were performed.

Results

A total of 202 female breast cancer patients completed the PRO assessment (nonexposed group: n=96 patients; exposed group: n=106 patients). Self-reported technical skills were higher in exposed patients (2.79 vs 2.33, P ≤.001). Significant differences were found in relation to willingness to use ePRO (92.3% in the exposed group vs 59% in the nonexposed group; P=.001). Multiple barriers were identified, and most of them showed statistically significant differences in favor of the exposed patients (ie, data security [13% in the exposed patients vs 30% in the nonexposed patients; P=.003] and no prior technology usage [5% in the exposed group vs 15% in the nonexposed group; P=.02]), whereas the differences in disease burden (somatic dimension: 4% in the exposed group vs 9% in the nonexposed group; P=.13) showed no significance. In nonexposed patients, requests for support services were identified, which could increase their ePRO willingness.

Conclusions

Significant barriers in relation to HRQoL, cancer-related restrictions, and especially the setting of the survey were identified in this trial. Thus, it is necessary to address and eliminate these barriers to ensure data accuracy and reliability for future ePRO assessments. Exposure seems to be a potential option to increase willingness to use ePRO and to reduce barriers.

Capturing the Patient's Perspective: a Review of Advances in Natural Language Processing of Health-Related Text

Background: Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods are increasingly being utilized to mine knowledge from unstructured health-related texts. Recent advances in noisy text processing techniques are enabling researchers and medical domain experts to go beyond the information encapsulated in published texts (e.g., clinical trials and systematic reviews) and structured questionnaires, and obtain perspectives from other unstructured sources such as Electronic Health Records (EHRs) and social media posts. Objectives: To review the recently published literature discussing the application of NLP techniques for mining health-related information from EHRs and social media posts. Methods: Literature review included the research published over the last five years based on searches of PubMed, conference proceedings, and the ACM Digital Library, as well as on relevant publications referenced in papers. We particularly focused on the techniques employed on EHRs and social media data. Results: A set of 62 studies involving EHRs and 87 studies involving social media matched our criteria and were included in this paper. We present the purposes of these studies, outline the key NLP contributions, and discuss the general trends observed in the field, the current state of research, and important outstanding problems. Conclusions: Over the recent years, there has been a continuing transition from lexical and rule-based systems to learning-based approaches, because of the growth of annotated data sets and advances in data science. For EHRs, publicly available annotated data is still scarce and this acts as an obstacle to research progress. On the contrary, research on social media mining has seen a rapid growth, particularly because the large amount of unlabeled data available via this resource compensates for the uncertainty inherent to the data. Effective mechanisms to filter out noise and for mapping social media expressions to standard medical concepts are crucial and latent research problems. Shared tasks and other competitive challenges have been driving factors behind the implementation of open systems, and they are likely to play an imperative role in the development of future systems.

Understanding Response Rates to Surveys About Family Members' Psychological Symptoms After Patients' Critical Illness

CONTEXT

Achieving adequate response rates from family members of critically ill patients can be challenging, especially when assessing psychological symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To identify factors associated with completion of surveys about psychological symptoms among family members of critically ill patients.

METHODS

Using data from a randomized trial of an intervention to improve communication between clinicians and families of critically ill patients, we examined patient-level and family-level predictors of the return of usable surveys at baseline, three months, and six months (n = 181, 171, and 155, respectively). Family-level predictors included baseline symptoms of psychological distress, decisional independence preference, and attachment style. We hypothesized that family with fewer symptoms of psychological distress, a preference for less decisional independence, and secure attachment style would be more likely to return questionnaires.

RESULTS

We identified several predictors of the return of usable questionnaires. Better self-assessed family member health status was associated with a higher likelihood and stronger agreement with a support-seeking attachment style with a lower likelihood, of obtaining usable baseline surveys. At three months, family-level predictors of return of usable surveys included having usable baseline surveys, status as the patient's legal next of kin, and stronger agreement with a secure attachment style. The only predictor of receipt of surveys at six months was the presence of usable surveys at three months.

CONCLUSION

We identified several predictors of the receipt of surveys assessing psychological symptoms in family of critically ill patients, including family member health status and attachment style. Using these characteristics to inform follow-up mailings and reminders may enhance response rates.

Tailored Communication Within Mobile Apps for Diabetes Self-Management: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of diabetes is increasing and with the requirements for self-management and risk of late complications, it remains a challenge for the individual and society. Patients can benefit from support from health care personnel in their self-management, and the traditional communication between patients and health care personnel is changing. Smartphones and apps offer a unique platform for communication, but apps with integrated health care personnel communication based on patient data are yet to be investigated to provide evidence of possible effects.

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to systematically review studies that aimed to evaluate integrated communication within mobile apps for tailored feedback between patients with diabetes and health care personnel in terms of (1) study characteristics, (2) functions, (3) study outcomes, (4) effects, and (5) methodological quality.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted following our International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) protocol, searching for apps with integrated communication for persons with diabetes tested in a controlled trial in the period 2008 to 2016. We searched the databases PubMed, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central, Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The search was closed in September 2016. Reference lists of primary articles and review papers were assessed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and we applied the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess methodological quality.

RESULTS

We identified 2822 citations and after duplicate removal, we assessed 1128 citations. A total of 6 papers were included in this systematic review, reporting on data from 431 persons participating in small trials of short duration. The integrated communication features were mostly individualized as written non-real-time feedback. The number of functions varied from 2 to 9, and blood glucose tracking was the most common. HbA_1c was the most common primary outcome, but the remaining reported outcomes were not standardized and comparable. Because of both the heterogeneity of the included trials and the poor methodological quality of the studies, a meta-analysis was not possible. A statistically significant improvement in the primary measure of outcome was found in 3 of the 6 included studies, of which 2 were HbA_1c and 1 was mean daytime ambulatory blood pressure. Participants in the included trials reported positive usability or feasibility postintervention in 5 out of 6 trials. The overall methodological quality of the trials was, however, scored as an uncertain risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review highlights the need for more trials of higher methodological quality. Few studies offer an integrated function for communication and feedback from health care personnel, and the research field represents an area of heterogeneity with few studies of highly rigorous methodological quality. This, in combination with a low number of participants and a short follow-up, is making it difficult to provide reliable evidence of effects for stakeholders.

Raising the profile of pilot and feasibility studies in relation to the development, evaluation and implementation of patient-reported outcome measures

This editorial introduces a new special series on the pilot and feasibility testing of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the on-line open access journal Pilot and Feasibility Studies. Pilot and feasibility studies are typically implemented to address issues of uncertainty before undertaking a larger definitive study such as a randomised controlled trial or large scale survey. This editorial considers the role that such pilot and feasibility testing plays in relation to the development, evaluation and implementation of PROMs. This is often an essential element of PROM research but is typically overlooked-especially within current methodological guidance, reporting space and also debate. This editorial aims to open up a dialogue about the role of pilot and feasibility testing in relation to PROMs. It highlights some of the areas in PROMs research where these types of studies have been carried out and discusses the ways in which the PROM community may be better supported and encouraged to integrate this element of the research process into their PROM-based work.

Measurement of Nonmotor Symptoms in Clinical Practice

Nonmotor symptoms constitute a prominent part of Parkinson's disease manifestations. They are present since the first phases of the disease, increase their number and severity with disease progression, and importantly impact on patients' health and quality of life, caregivers' burden, and social resources. Research on Parkinson's disease has traditionally focused on the motor aspects of the disease, but an increasing interest in the nonmotor manifestations has risen in the past decade. The availability of assessment instruments for detecting and measuring these symptoms has allowed understanding of their importance and course over time, as well as estimation of therapeutic effects on them. In this chapter, a review of the basic characteristics of nonmotor symptom assessments used in clinical practice and research are presented.

Patient-reported outcome measures in dysphagia: a systematic review of instrument development and validation

OBJECTIVE

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are commonly used to capture patient experience with dysphagia and to evaluate treatment effectiveness. Inappropriate application can lead to distorted results in clinical studies. A systematic review of the literature on dysphagia-related PRO measures was performed to (1) identify all currently available measures and (2) to evaluate each for the presence of important measurement properties that would affect their applicability.

DESIGN

MEDLINE via the PubMed interface, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Health and Psychosocial Instrument database were searched using relevant vocabulary terms and key terms related to PRO measures and dysphagia. Three independent investigators performed abstract and full text reviews. Each study meeting criteria was evaluated using an 18-item checklist developed a priori that assessed multiple domains: (1) conceptual model, (2) content validity, (3) reliability, (4) construct validity, (6) scoring and interpretation, and (7) burden and presentation.

RESULTS

Of 4950 abstracts reviewed, a total of 34 dysphagia-related PRO measures (publication year 1987-2014) met criteria for extraction and analysis. Several PRO measures were of high quality (MADS for achalasia, SWAL-QOL and SSQ for oropharyngeal dysphagia, PROMIS-GI for general dysphagia, EORTC-QLQ-OG25 for esophageal cancer, ROMP-swallowing for Parkinson's Disease, DSQ-EoE for eosinophilic esophagitis, and SOAL for total laryngectomy-related dysphagia). In all, 17 met at least one criterion per domain. Thematic deficiencies in current measures were evident including: (1) direct patient involvement in content development, (2) empirically justified dimensionality, (3) demonstrable responsiveness to change, (4) plan for interpreting missing responses, and (5) literacy level assessment.

CONCLUSION

This is the first comprehensive systematic review assessing developmental properties of all available dysphagia-related PRO measures. We identified several instruments with robust measurement properties in multiple diseases including achalasia, oropharyngeal dysphagia, post-surgical dysphagia, esophageal cancer, and dysphagia related to neurological diseases. Findings herein can assist clinicians and researchers in making more informed decisions in selecting the most fundamentally sound PRO measure for a given clinical, research, or quality initiative.

Evaluation of Noncompletion Bias and Long-Term Adherence in a 10-Year Patient-Reported Outcome Monitoring Program in Clinical Routine

BACKGROUND

Currently there is little knowledge on real-life sustainability of routine patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement and the representativeness of collected data.

OBJECTIVES

The investigation of routine PRO with regard to noncompletion bias and long-term adher- ence, considering the potential impact of mode of assessment (MOA) (paper-pencil vs. electronic PRO [ePRO]) and patient characteristics.

METHODS

At our department, routine PRO measurement in oncological patients is being done since 2005 using different MOA (paper-pencil assessment until 2011 and ePRO assessment from 2011 onward). We analyzed two different patient groups: patients eligible in both periods (both-MOA group) and patients eligible in only one period (one-MOA group). The primary outcome was PRO noncompletion (100% missing questionnaires). The secondary outcome was poor PRO adherence (>20% missing questionnaires). Multivariate logistic regression models were developed, testing the impact of MOA and patient characteristics on the outcomes in the different patient groups.

RESULTS

Data from 1484 eligible patients were included in the analyses. Most of the patients could be included in PRO assessment at least once. PRO noncompletion rates were clearly higher during paper-pencil assessment (odds ratios between 2.72 and 4.31), as were poor PRO adherence rates (odd ratio 2.23). Analyses of potential bias by patient characteristics showed that male patients had a higher risk of poor adherence. Other factors with significant impact were age, country, and cancer diagnosis, but results were indecisive.

CONCLUSIONS

ePRO increased the feasibility of our clinical routine PRO data for retrospective analyses by increasing completion rates. In general, potential completion bias regarding certain patient characteristics requires attention before generalizing results to the respective populations.

How Comprehensive and Efficient Are Patient-Reported Outcomes for Rotator Cuff Tears?

BACKGROUND

Increasing emphasis is placed on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after common orthopaedic procedures as a measure of quality. When considering PRO utilization in patients with rotator cuff tears, several different PROs exist with varying levels of accuracy and utilization.

HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE

Understanding which disease-specific PRO may be most efficiently administered in patients after rotator cuff repair may assist in promoting increased patient and physician adoption of these useful scores. Using a novel assessment criterion, this study assessed all commonly used rotator cuff PROs. We hypothesize that surveys with fewer numbers of questions may remain comparable (with regard to comprehensiveness) to longer surveys.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

Commonly utilized rotator cuff PROs were analyzed with regard to number of survey components, comprehensiveness, and efficiency. Comprehensiveness (maximum score, 11) was scored as the total number of pain (at rest/baseline, night/sleep, activities of daily living [ADLs], sport, and work) and functional (strength, motion/stiffness, and ability to perform ADLs, sport, and work) metrics included, along with inclusion of quality of life/satisfaction metrics. Efficiency was calculated as comprehensiveness divided by the number of survey components.

RESULTS

Sixteen different PROs were studied. Number of components ranged from 5 (University of California at Los Angeles score [UCLA]) to 36 (Short Form-36 [SF-36], Japanese Orthopaedic Association score [JOA]). The Quality of Life Outcome Measure for Rotator Cuff Disease (RC-QoL) included all 5 pain components, while 7 PROs contained all 5 functional components. Ten PROs included a quality of life/satisfaction component. The most comprehensive scores were the RC-QoL (score, 11) and Penn (score, 10), and the least comprehensive score was the Marx (score, 3). The most efficient PROs were the UCLA, the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (QuickDASH), and Constant scores. The least efficient scores were the JOA and SF-36 scores.

CONCLUSION

Many commonly utilized PROs for rotator cuff tears are lacking in comprehensiveness and efficiency. Continued critical assessment of PRO quality may help practitioners identify the most comprehensive and efficient PRO to incorporate into daily clinical practice.

Survey mode influence on patient-reported outcome scores in orthopaedic surgery: telephone results may be positively biased

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores are used to evaluate treatment modalities in orthopaedic surgery. The method of PRO collection may introduce bias to reported surgical outcomes due to the presence of an interviewer. This study evaluates post-operative PROs for variation of outcomes between survey methods-in-person, online, or telephone.

METHODS

From 2008 to 2011, 456 patients underwent arthroscopic surgical treatment for acetabular labral tears. All pre-operative surveys were completed in the clinic during pre-operative visit. Two-year follow-up questionnaires were completed by 385 (84 %) patients. The PRO data were prospectively collected pre- and post-operatively using five tools: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADLS), Hip Outcome Score Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and visual analog scale. Patients were grouped according to method of 2-year follow-up: in-person during follow-up visit (102 patients, 26 %), online by email prompt (138 patients, 36 %), or telephone with an interviewer (145 patients, 38 %).

RESULTS

Pre-operative baseline PRO scores demonstrated no statistically significant difference between groups for mHHS, HOS-ADLS, HOS-SSS, and NAHS. Two-year post-operative PRO scores obtained by telephone were statistically greater than scores obtained in-person or online for mHHS (p < 0.001), HOS-ADLS (p < 0.001), and HOS-SSS (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates higher patient-reported outcome scores and greater improvement by telephone surveys compared to in-person or online. The variation of results between collection methods is indicative of a confounding variable. Clinically, it is important to understand these confounding variables in order to assess patient responses and guide treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care

Background

The feedback of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data is intended to support the care of individual patients and to act as a quality improvement (QI) strategy.

Objectives

To (1) identify the ideas and assumptions underlying how individual and aggregated PROMs data are intended to improve patient care, and (2) review the evidence to examine the circumstances in which and processes through which PROMs feedback improves patient care.

Design

Two separate but related realist syntheses: (1) feedback of aggregate PROMs and performance data to improve patient care, and (2) feedback of individual PROMs data to improve patient care.

Interventions

Aggregate – feedback and public reporting of PROMs, patient experience data and performance data to hospital providers and primary care organisations. Individual – feedback of PROMs in oncology, palliative care and the care of people with mental health problems in primary and secondary care settings.

Main outcome measures

Aggregate – providers’ responses, attitudes and experiences of using PROMs and performance data to improve patient care. Individual – providers’ and patients’ experiences of using PROMs data to raise issues with clinicians, change clinicians’ communication practices, change patient management and improve patient well-being.

Data sources

Searches of electronic databases and forwards and backwards citation tracking.

Review methods

Realist synthesis to identify, test and refine programme theories about when, how and why PROMs feedback leads to improvements in patient care.

Results

Providers were more likely to take steps to improve patient care in response to the feedback and public reporting of aggregate PROMs and performance data if they perceived that these data were credible, were aimed at improving patient care, and were timely and provided a clear indication of the source of the problem. However, implementing substantial and sustainable improvement to patient care required system-wide approaches. In the care of individual patients, PROMs function more as a tool to support patients in raising issues with clinicians than they do in substantially changing clinicians’ communication practices with patients. Patients valued both standardised and individualised PROMs as a tool to raise issues, but thought is required as to which patients may benefit and which may not. In settings such as palliative care and psychotherapy, clinicians viewed individualised PROMs as useful to build rapport and support the therapeutic process. PROMs feedback did not substantially shift clinicians’ communication practices or focus discussion on psychosocial issues; this required a shift in clinicians’ perceptions of their remit.

Strengths and limitations

There was a paucity of research examining the feedback of aggregate PROMs data to providers, and we drew on evidence from interventions with similar programme theories (other forms of performance data) to test our theories.

Conclusions

PROMs data act as ‘tin openers’ rather than ‘dials’. Providers need more support and guidance on how to collect their own internal data, how to rule out alternative explanations for their outlier status and how to explore the possible causes of their outlier status. There is also tension between PROMs as a QI strategy versus their use in the care of individual patients; PROMs that clinicians find useful in assessing patients, such as individualised measures, are not useful as indicators of service quality.

Future work

Future research should (1) explore how differently performing providers have responded to aggregate PROMs feedback, and how organisations have collected PROMs data both for individual patient care and to improve service quality; and (2) explore whether or not and how incorporating PROMs into patients’ electronic records allows multiple different clinicians to receive PROMs feedback, discuss it with patients and act on the data to improve patient care.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005938.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Voice-Related Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review of Instrument Development and Validation

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive systematic review of the literature on voice-related patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in adults and to evaluate each instrument for the presence of important measurement properties.

METHOD

MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Health and Psychosocial Instrument databases were searched using relevant vocabulary terms and key terms related to PRO measures and voice. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed in consultation with an expert panel. Three independent investigators assessed study methodology using criteria developed a priori. Measurement properties were examined and entered into evidence tables.

RESULTS

A total of 3,744 studies assessing voice-related constructs were identified. This list was narrowed to 32 PRO measures on the basis of predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Questionnaire measurement properties varied widely. Important thematic deficiencies were apparent: (a) lack of patient involvement in the item development process, (b) lack of robust construct validity, and (c) lack of clear interpretability and scaling.

CONCLUSIONS

PRO measures are a principal means of evaluating treatment effectiveness in voice-related conditions. Despite their prominence, available PRO measures have disparate methodological rigor. Care must be taken to understand the psychometric and measurement properties and the applicability of PRO measures before advocating for their use in clinical or research applications.

National Trends in Indicators of a Medical Home for Children

OBJECTIVES

The patient centered medical home is now widely supported as a strategy for delivering high quality primary care. The objective of this study was to examine whether children's primary care experiences nationally have become more aligned with the medical home model over time, and how this may have varied for vulnerable children.

METHODS

This study analyzed data on 289,672 children, aged 0-17 years, of families responding to one of three iterations of National Survey of Children's Health from 2003, 2007 and 2011-2012. Each year, we assessed indicators of four medical home features (access, continuity, comprehensiveness, and family-centeredness) and a total medical home score for children nationally and for those with a set of social and demographic risk factors.

RESULTS

Indicators of access and continuity, and total medical home scores fluctuated but improved overall from 2003 to 2012 (7.1, 6.7 and 1.4 % point increases, respectively), while indicators of comprehensiveness and family-centered care measures declined (2.4 and 1.8 % point decreases, respectively). Children with the highest levels of social and demographic risk experienced larger fluctuations in these measures over time.

CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE

There were improvements in the extent to which children's primary care experiences aligned with a medical home model, though not linearly or for all component features. Children with more risk factors experienced more volatile changes, suggesting a particular need to attend to the primary care experiences of the most vulnerable children.

The path to successful commercialization of cell and gene therapies: empowering patient advocates

Often, novel gene and cell therapies provide hope for many people living with incurable diseases. To facilitate and accelerate a successful regulatory approval and commercialization path for effective, safe and affordable cell and gene therapies, the involvement of patient advocacy groups (PAGs) should be considered early in the development process. This report provides a thorough overview of the various roles PAGs play in the clinical translation of cell and gene therapies and how they can bring about positive changes in the regulatory process, infrastructure improvements and market stability.

Cancer patients' understanding of longitudinal EORTC QLQ-C30 scores presented as bar charts

OBJECTIVE

To investigate cancer patients' understanding of graphical presentations of longitudinal EORTC QLQ-C30 scores.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with brain tumour patients participating in routine patient-reported outcome (PRO) monitoring. We assessed understanding of longitudinal quality of life (QOL) profiles, presented as bar charts objectively and with self-ratings. In addition, patients' opinions on congruency of the QOL scores with their self-perceived health status were evaluated.

RESULTS

We recruited 40 brain tumour patients (57.5% female; mean age 52.7, SD 13.7). In total, 90% of patients rated the graphs as easy to understand. Accordingly, almost all questions on assessing understanding objectively were answered correctly by at least 80% of the patients. More than 95% indicated that the displayed QOL scores matched their personal perception of symptom burden and functional health in the observed period.

CONCLUSION

Patients are able to understand their QOL results when presented graphically and are able to interpret important changes. Displayed QOL scores obtained with the EORTC QLQ-C30 are consistent with the patients' personal perception of physical and emotional functioning, pain and fatigue.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Knowledge about patients' understanding of graphically displayed QOL results contributes to creation of optimal evidence-based feedback on the patients' present QOL and its trajectory.

Design, construction, and technical implementation of a web-based interdisciplinary symptom evaluation (WISE) - a heuristic proposal for orofacial pain and temporomandibular disorders

BACKGROUND

Medical symptoms independent of body location burden individuals to varying degrees and may require care by more than one expert. Various paper and computer-based tools exist that aim to comprehensively capture data for optimal clinical management and research.

METHODS

A web-based interdisciplinary symptom evaluation (WISE) was newly designed, constructed, and technically implemented. For worldwide applicability and to avoid copyright infringements, open source software tools and free validated questionnaires available in multiple languages were used. Highly secure data storage limits access strictly to those who use the tool for collecting, storing, and evaluating their data. Concept and implementation is illustrated by a WISE sample tailored for the requirements of a single center in Switzerland providing interdisciplinary care to orofacial pain and temporomandibular disorder patients.

RESULTS

By combining a symptom- burden checklist with in-depth questionnaires serving as case-finding instruments, an algorithm was developed that assists in clarifying case complexity and need for targeted expert evaluation. This novel modular approach provides a personalized, response-tailored instrument for the time- and cost-effective collection of symptom-burden focused quantitative data. The tool includes body drawing options and instructional videos. It is applicable for biopsychosocial evaluation in a variety of clinical settings and offers direct feedback by a case report summary.

CONCLUSIONS

In clinical practice, the new instrument assists in clarifying case complexity and referral need, based on symptom burden and response -tailored case finding. It provides single-case summary reports from a biopsychosocial perspective and includes graphical symptom maps. Secure, centrally stored data collection of anonymous data is possible. The tool enables personalized medicine, facilitates interprofessional education and collaboration, and allows for multicenter patient-reported outcomes research.

All together now: findings from a PCORI workshop to align patient-reported outcomes in the electronic health record

In recent years, patient-reported outcomes have become increasingly collected and integrated into electronic health records. However, there are few cross-cutting recommendations and limited guidance available in this rapidly developing research area. Our goal is to report key findings from a 2013 Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute workshop on this topic and a summary of actions that followed from the workshop, and present resulting recommendations that address patient, clinical and research/quality improvement barriers to regular use. These findings provide actionable guidance across research and practice settings to promote and sustain widespread adoption of patient-reported outcomes across patient populations, healthcare settings and electronic health record systems.

Comprehensiveness of Outcome Reporting in Studies of Articular Cartilage Defects of the Knee

PURPOSE

To assess the comprehensiveness of outcome reporting after treatment of focal articular cartilage defects in the knee.

METHODS

A systematic review of literature published over the past 5 years (October 2010 to October 2015) in 5 high-impact orthopaedic journals was completed to identify all recent clinical studies tracking outcomes after surgery for focal articular cartilage defects in the knee. A metric reporting score was calculated for each study, according to reporting of 6 cardinal domains: pain, satisfaction, osteoarthritis progression, subjective knee function, objective knee function, and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 122 studies included for review, 117 (96%) tracked patient-reported outcomes during follow-up. Nearly two-thirds of studies (63%) monitored progression of osteoarthritis at follow-up. Fewer than half of studies (39%) specifically monitored pain outcomes in patients. One-third of studies (30%) tracked patient satisfaction. Only 21% of studies monitored subjective knee function using proxies such as return to play, and only 17% of studies reported on objective knee function during return visits to the clinic. The average metric reporting score of all studies was 2.6, and nearly half of studies (48%) reported on only 1 or 2 domains of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial variability in outcome reporting after cartilage surgery in high-impact orthopaedic journals. Furthermore, most studies do not comprehensively track outcomes across domains. Both factors hinder comparison of results across studies. Future outcome metrics should focus on patient-centered factors to improve both accuracy of results reporting and standardization across studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV studies.

Improving Patient Satisfaction Through Computer-Based Questionnaires

Patient-reported outcome measures are helping clinicians to use evidence-based medicine in decision making. The use of computer-based questionnaires to gather such data may offer advantages over traditional paper-based methods. These advantages include consistent presentation, prompts for missed questions, reliable scoring, and simple and accurate transfer of information into databases without manual data entry. The authors enrolled 308 patients over a 16-month period from 3 orthopedic clinics: spine, upper extremity, and trauma. Patients were randomized to complete either electronic or paper validated outcome forms during their first visit, and they completed the opposite modality at their second visit, which was approximately 7 weeks later. For patients with upper-extremity injuries, the Penn Shoulder Score (PSS) was used. For patients with lower-extremity injuries, the Foot Function Index (FFI) was used. For patients with lumbar spine symptoms, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was used. All patients also were asked to complete the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Health Status Survey, version 1. The authors assessed patient satisfaction with each survey modality and determined potential advantages and disadvantages for each. No statistically significant differences were found between the paper and electronic versions for patient-reported outcome data. However, patients strongly preferred the electronic surveys. Additionally, the paper forms had significantly more missed questions for the FFI (P<.0001), ODI (P<.0001), and PSS (P=.008), and patents were significantly less likely to complete these forms (P<.0001). Future research should focus on limiting the burden on responders, individualizing forms and questions as much as possible, and offering alternative environments for completion (home or mobile platforms).

Using patient-reported outcomes and PROMIS in research and clinical applications: experiences from the PCORI pilot projects

PURPOSE

The field of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) continues to develop. Patient-reported outcomes and, in particular the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) contribute complementary data to clinician-derived outcomes traditionally used in health decision-making. However, there has been little work to understand how PROMIS measures may inform or be integrated into PCOR or clinical applications.

METHODS

Lead investigators from four pilot projects funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) collaborated to discuss lessons learned about the use of PROMIS in PCOR studies via virtual and in-person meetings. In addition, a qualitative data collection tool was used to assess the pilot projects' experiences.

RESULTS

Lessons learned from the pilot projects centered on practical elements of research design, such as choosing the right outcomes to study, considering the advantages and limitations of the PROMIS short forms and computer adaptive technology versions, planning ahead for a feasible data collection process, maintaining the focus on patients by ensuring that the research is truly patient-centered, and helping patients and providers make the most of PROMIS in care.

CONCLUSION

The PCORI pilot projects demonstrated that PROMIS can be successfully used to conduct research that will help patients make decisions about their care. Interest in PCOR continues to grow and the lessons learned from these projects about the use of PROMIS will be helpful to investigators. Given the numerous benefits of PROMIS, implementing this tool in research and care will hopefully lead to significant progress in measuring health outcomes that are meaningful and relevant to all stakeholders.

Collecting, Integrating, and Disseminating Patient-Reported Outcomes for Research in a Learning Healthcare System

Introduction:

Advances in health policy, research, and information technology have converged to increase the electronic collection and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Therefore, it is important to share lessons learned in implementing PROs in research information systems.

Case Description:

The purpose of this case study is to describe a novel information system for electronic PROs and lessons learned in implementing that system to support research in an academic health center. The system incorporates freely available and commercial software and involves clinical and research workflows that support the collection, transformation, and research use of PRO data. The software and processes that comprise the system serve three main functions, (i) collecting electronic PROs in clinical care, (ii) integrating PRO data with non-patient generated clinical data, and (iii) disseminating data to researchers through the institution’s research informatics infrastructure, including the i2b2 (Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside) system.

Strategies:

Our successful design and implementation was driven by three overarching strategies. First, we selected and implemented multiple interfaced technologies to support PRO collection, management, and research use. Second, we aimed to use standardized approaches to measuring PROs, sending PROs between systems, and disseminating PROs. Finally, we focused on using technologies and processes that aligned with existing clinical research information management strategies within our organization.

Conclusion:

These experiences and lessons may help future implementers and researchers enhance the scale and sustainable use of systems for research use of PROs.

Using Patient Reported Outcomes in Oncology Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly being implemented into the care of patients with cancer. The use of a standard set of PROs (e.g., pain) in cancer is becoming established and there is interest in what additional PROs might provide valuable information. The goal of this observational study was to examine how the PROs of self-efficacy for pain and other symptoms assessed at the point of service were associated with pain, symptom severity and distress, and physical and psychosocial functioning in a sample of breast and gastrointestinal patients. We also sought to examine differences in these relationships by cancer type (breast and gastrointestinal) as well as understand differences in self-assessment mode (paper/pencil or electronic tablet).

METHODS

178 patients with breast (n=65) and gastrointestinal cancer (n = 113) completed the Chronic Pain Self Efficacy Scale, M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General questionnaires. Measures were completed with paper and pencil and electronically using a tablet computer while patients waited for their clinical appointment. Responses from the initial completed questionnaires on both the paper and electronic instruments were analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients' self-efficacy scores for pain and other symptoms correlated positively with pain, symptom severity and distress, and physical and psychosocial functioning; patients with lower levels of self-efficacy reported poorer outcomes and functioning overall. The results were independent of cancer type and mode of assessment. No statistically significant differences were found in the PROs when collected by electronic technology versus paper-pencil mode; patients were very satisfied with using the tablet computer to complete the PRO measures.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Our results suggest that self-efficacy for pain and symptom management may be a beneficial addition to clinic-based PRO assessment batteries for patients with cancer and other chronic diseases. Existing short, validated symptom self-efficacy scales could easily be integrated into clinical practice to help healthcare providers identify patients that might benefit from intervention. Study results also support existing research that suggests electronic approaches are a practical way to collect PRO data, including self-efficacy data, in the clinic. Overall, our data suggest that patients who have particularly low levels of self-efficacy for pain and symptom management may be at risk for higher levels of pain and disability. Thus, if self-efficacy for pain and symptom management were routinely collected at the time of clinical service, psychosocial interventions to improve self-efficacy for pain and symptom management, and in turn overall quality of life, could be implemented in a timely fashion.

The Minimum Clinically Important Improvement and Patient-acceptable Symptom State in the BASDAI and BASFI for Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis

Objective.

To establish cutoffs for the minimum clinically important improvement (MCII) and the patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) for the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

Methods.

Patients with AS who started nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs were included. After 4 weeks, the PASS and the MCII were defined using external anchor questions (for the PASS, patients considering their condition of AS over the prior 48 h as “acceptable” forever; and for the MCII, those reporting moderate or slightly important improvement). Consistency of the MCII and PASS were tested according to HLA-B27 status, presence/absence of SpA extraarticular manifestations, age, sex, disease duration, and baseline BASDAI/BASFI score. The 75th percentile of the cumulative distribution was used to determine the MCII and PASS.

Results.

In total, 283 patients from a multinational cohort were included. Overall cutoffs for the PASS were 4.1 in the BASDAI and 3.8 in the BASFI. Cutoffs for the MCII were 0.7 and 0.4 for the BASDAI and BASFI, respectively. Subgroup analyses revealed that disease duration and baseline BASDAI/BASFI were significantly associated with the PASS and MCII. In a subanalysis limited to patients with active disease (baseline BASDAI ≥ 4), the MCII was 1.1 for the BASDAI and 0.6 for the BASFI.

Conclusion.

The conceptual viability of the PASS for the BASDAI is questionable because levels approach those required for the start of biological therapy. Because the MCII is less variable than the PASS, we propose its exclusive use, with cutoffs of 1.1/0.6 for the BASDAI/BASFI in patients with active disease. Because these values are based on a subset of the study population, we recommend confirmation in larger studies focused on patients with baseline BASDAI ≥ 4.

New Paradigms for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research in Electronic Medical Records: An Example of Detecting Urinary Incontinence Following Prostatectomy

Introduction:

National initiatives to develop quality metrics emphasize the need to include patient-centered outcomes. Patient-centered outcomes are complex, require documentation of patient communications, and have not been routinely collected by healthcare providers. The widespread implementation of electronic medical records (EHR) offers opportunities to assess patient-centered outcomes within the routine healthcare delivery system. The objective of this study was to test the feasibility and accuracy of identifying patient centered outcomes within the EHR.

Methods:

Data from patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing prostatectomy were used to develop and test algorithms to accurately identify patient-centered outcomes in post-operative EHRs – we used urinary incontinence as the use case. Standard data mining techniques were used to extract and annotate free text and structured data to assess urinary incontinence recorded within the EHRs.

Results

A total 5,349 prostate cancer patients were identified in our EHR-system between 1998–2013. Among these EHRs, 30.3% had a text mention of urinary incontinence within 90 days post-operative compared to less than 1.0% with a structured data field for urinary incontinence (i.e. ICD-9 code). Our workflow had good precision and recall for urinary incontinence (positive predictive value: 0.73 and sensitivity: 0.84).

Discussion.

Our data indicate that important patient-centered outcomes, such as urinary incontinence, are being captured in EHRs as free text and highlight the long-standing importance of accurate clinician documentation. Standard data mining algorithms can accurately and efficiently identify these outcomes in existing EHRs; the complete assessment of these outcomes is essential to move practice into the patient-centered realm of healthcare.

Defining the value framework for prostate brachytherapy using patient-centered outcome metrics and time-driven activity-based costing

PURPOSE

Value, defined as outcomes over costs, has been proposed as a measure to evaluate prostate cancer (PCa) treatments. We analyzed standardized outcomes and time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) for prostate brachytherapy (PBT) to define a value framework.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with low-risk PCa treated with low-dose-rate PBT between 1998 and 2009 were included. Outcomes were recorded according to the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement standard set, which includes acute toxicity, patient-reported outcomes, and recurrence and survival outcomes. Patient-level costs to 1 year after PBT were collected using TDABC. Process mapping and radar chart analyses were conducted to visualize this value framework.

RESULTS

A total of 238 men were eligible for analysis. Median age was 64 (range, 46-81). Median followup was 5 years (0.5-12.1). There were no acute Grade 3-5 complications. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 50 scores were favorable, with no clinically significant changes from baseline to last followup at 48 months for urinary incontinence/bother, bowel bother, sexual function, and vitality. Ten-year outcomes were favorable, including biochemical failure-free survival of 84.1%, metastasis-free survival 99.6%, PCa-specific survival 100%, and overall survival 88.6%. TDABC analysis demonstrated low resource utilization for PBT, with 41% and 10% of costs occurring in the operating room and with the MRI scan, respectively. The radar chart allowed direct visualization of outcomes and costs.

CONCLUSIONS

We successfully created a visual framework to define the value of PBT using the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement standard set and TDABC costs. PBT is associated with excellent outcomes and low costs. Widespread adoption of this methodology will enable value comparisons across providers, institutions, and treatment modalities.

Inadequacy of 3-month Oswestry Disability Index outcome for assessing individual longer-term patient experience after lumbar spine surgery

OBJECTIVE Prospective longitudinal outcomes registries are at the center of evidence-driven health care reform. Obtaining real-world outcomes data at 12 months can be costly and challenging. In the present study, the authors analyzed whether 3-month outcome measurements sufficiently represent 12-month outcomes for patients with degenerative lumbar disease undergoing surgery. METHODS Data from 3073 patients undergoing elective spine surgery for degenerative lumbar disease were entered into a prospective multicenter registry (N(2)QOD). Baseline, 3-month, and 12-month follow-up Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were recorded. The absolute differences between actual 12- and 3-month ODI scores was evaluated. Additionally, the authors analyzed the absolute difference between actual 12-month ODI scores and a model-predicted 12-month ODI score (the model used patients' baseline characteristics and actual 3-month scores). The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for ODI of 12.8 points and the substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for ODI of 18.8 points were used based on the previously published values. The concordance rate of achieving MCID and SCB for ODI at 3-and 12-months was computed. RESULTS The 3-month ODI scores differed from 12-month scores by an absolute difference of 11.9 ± 10.8, and predictive modeling estimations of 12-month ODI scores differed from actual 12-month scores by a mean (± SD) of 10.7 ± 9.0 points (p = 0.001). Sixty-four percent of patients (n = 1982) achieved an MCID for ODI at 3 months in comparison with 67% of patients (n = 2088) by 12 months; 51% (n = 1731) and 61% (n = 1860) of patients achieved SCB for ODI at 3 months and 12 months, respectively. Almost 20% of patients had ODI scores that varied at least 20 points (the point span of an ODI functional category) between actual 3- and 12-month values. In the aggregate analysis of achieving MCID, 77% of patients were concordant and 23% were discordant in achieving or not achieving MCID at 3 and 12 months. The discordance rates of achieving or not achieving MCID for ODI were in the range of 19% to 27% for all diagnoses and treatments (decompression with and without fusion). The positive and negative predictive value of 3-months ODI to predict 12-month ODI was 86% and 60% for MCID and 82% and 67% for SCB. CONCLUSIONS Based on their findings, the authors conclude the following: 1) Predictive methods for functional outcome based on early patient experience (i.e., baseline and/or 3-month data) should be used to help evaluate the effectiveness of procedures in patient populations, rather than serving as a proxy for long-term individual patient experience. 2) Prospective longitudinal registries need to span at least 12 months to determine the effectiveness of spine care at the individual patient and practitioner level.

Medication-related burden and patients' lived experience with medicine: a systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative studies

OBJECTIVE

To explore medication-related burden (MRB) and patients' lived experience with medicines (PLEM) without regard to particular medication therapies or medical conditions.

DESIGN

Systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative studies.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, PsycINFO, Global health, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched from January 2000 to August 2014 using medication burden and patients' lived experience terms.

SYNTHESIS METHODS

Synthesis was undertaken following metaethnography methods and a comparative thematic analysis technique.

RESULTS

34 articles from 12 countries with a total of 1144 participants were included. 3 major inter-related themes emerged central to PLEM: MRB, medication related beliefs and medication taking practice. The negative impact of MRB, due to its interference on patients' daily lives and effects on well-being, its influence on patients' beliefs and behaviours, and a potential risk for drug-related problems (DRPs) was evident. This resulted in non-adherence and poorer outcomes (unachieved therapeutic goals and damage to patients' health). Patients who experienced MRB interference in their life over time begin to juggle their medicines. Others continue their medicines despite experiencing MRB resulting in compromised physical, social or psychological well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a shared commonality of PLEM among the studies. MRB plays a central role in influencing patients' health and well-being, beliefs and behaviour towards medicines. Given the complexity of MRB and its impact evident from this review, there is a need for healthcare practitioners to have insight into PLEM in therapeutic care plans. Understanding PLEM is an opportunity for practitioners to identify particular MRBs that patients encounter, and provide individualised care through selection of therapeutic care plans that suit a patient's life. This may assist in helping to achieve patients' medication-related needs, and improve medication therapy and health outcomes.

Connecting the Dots: Linking the National Program of Cancer Registries and the Needs of Survivors and Clinicians

Cancer survivors, the medical community, public health professionals, researchers, and policymakers all need information about newly diagnosed cancer cases and deaths to better understand and address the disease burden. CDC collects cancer data on 96% of the U.S. population through the National Program of Cancer Registries. The National Program of Cancer Registries routinely collects data on all cancer occurrences, deaths, and the types of initial treatment received by the patients, and recently CDC has made advances in its cancer surveillance activities that have direct applicability to cancer survivorship research and care. This article examines CDC's innovative uses of the National Program of Cancer Registries infrastructure and data as a recruitment source for survivorship research studies and behavioral interventions; comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research; and the collection, consolidation, and dissemination of treatment summaries for cancer survivors and their providers. This paper also discusses long-term, idealistic plans for additional data linkages and sharing among public health, providers, and the cancer survivor through innovative concepts such as patient portals and rapid-learning health care.

Survey mode influence on patient-reported outcome scores in orthopaedic surgery: telephone results may be positively biased

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores are used to evaluate treatment modalities in orthopaedic surgery. The method of PRO collection may introduce bias to reported surgical outcomes due to the presence of an interviewer. This study evaluates post-operative PROs for variation of outcomes between survey methods-in-person, online, or telephone.

METHODS

From 2008 to 2011, 456 patients underwent arthroscopic surgical treatment for acetabular labral tears. All pre-operative surveys were completed in the clinic during pre-operative visit. Two-year follow-up questionnaires were completed by 385 (84 %) patients. The PRO data were prospectively collected pre- and post-operatively using five tools: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADLS), Hip Outcome Score Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and visual analog scale. Patients were grouped according to method of 2-year follow-up: in-person during follow-up visit (102 patients, 26 %), online by email prompt (138 patients, 36 %), or telephone with an interviewer (145 patients, 38 %).

RESULTS

Pre-operative baseline PRO scores demonstrated no statistically significant difference between groups for mHHS, HOS-ADLS, HOS-SSS, and NAHS. Two-year post-operative PRO scores obtained by telephone were statistically greater than scores obtained in-person or online for mHHS (p < 0.001), HOS-ADLS (p < 0.001), and HOS-SSS (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates higher patient-reported outcome scores and greater improvement by telephone surveys compared to in-person or online. The variation of results between collection methods is indicative of a confounding variable. Clinically, it is important to understand these confounding variables in order to assess patient responses and guide treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Overcoming barriers to implementing patient-reported outcomes in an electronic health record: a case report

In this case report, the authors describe the implementation of a system for collecting patient-reported outcomes and integrating results in an electronic health record. The objective was to identify lessons learned in overcoming barriers to collecting and integrating patient-reported outcomes in an electronic health record. The authors analyzed qualitative data in 42 documents collected from system development meetings, written feedback from users, and clinical observations with practice staff, providers, and patients. Guided by the Unified Theory on the Adoption and Use of Information Technology, 5 emergent themes were identified. Two barriers emerged: (i) uncertain clinical benefit and (ii) time, work flow, and effort constraints. Three facilitators emerged: (iii) process automation, (iv) usable system interfaces, and (v) collecting patient-reported outcomes for the right patient at the right time. For electronic health record-integrated patient-reported outcomes to succeed as useful clinical tools, system designers must ensure the clinical relevance of the information being collected while minimizing provider, staff, and patient burden.

Comparative effectiveness research in hand surgery

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is a concept initiated by the Institute of Medicine and financially supported by the federal government. The primary objective of CER is to improve decision making in medicine. This research is intended to evaluate the effectiveness, benefits, and harmful effects of alternative interventions. CER studies are commonly large, simple, observational, and conducted using electronic databases. To date, there is little comparative effectiveness evidence within hand surgery to guide therapeutic decisions. To draw conclusions on effectiveness through electronic health records, databases must contain clinical information and outcomes relevant to hand surgery interventions, such as patient-related outcomes.

Risk prediction tools in surgical oncology

Healthcare has increasingly focused on patient engagement and shared decision-making. Decision aids can promote engagement and shared decision making by providing patients and their providers with care options and outcomes. This article discusses decision aids for surgical oncology patients. Topics include: short-term risk prediction following surgery, long-term risk prediction of survival and recurrence, the combination of short- and long-term risk prediction to help guide treatment choice, and decision aid usability, transparency, and accessibility.

Multidisciplinary sleep centers: strategies to improve care of sleep disorders patients

Current emphasis on patient outcomes within sleep medicine, with a particular focus on quality improvement and contained costs, calls for sleep specialists to develop innovative models for long-term care and management of sleep disorders patients. Multidisciplinary sleep centers can facilitate highest-quality care that is timely and cost-effective. Effective resource use in a multidisciplinary sleep center can help minimize fragmentation of care, reduce effort duplication, and control costs. Proposed strategies to help achieve a balance between quality of care and cost-effectiveness include: (1) multidisciplinary specialty clinics, (2) optimized use of information technology, and (3) adoption of reliable performance measures.

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research in Voice

Patient-centered outcomes research is critically important to improving the management of patients with voice disorders. Currently, wide variation in outcome definitions and treatment decisions exist. It is the responsibility of voice clinicians and researchers to improve the quality of and access to care for patients with voice disorders through the conduct of collaborative and rigorous patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Patients are the ultimate arbiter of their treatment, but need reliable and valid information to make informed decisions. Improving outcomes research will require collaborations among clinicians and study design experts in epidemiology, biostatistics, and data analysis. Moreover, researchers should be encouraged to compare the effectiveness of current treatments, which, to date, are implemented with little systematic, rigorous reinforcing evidence. Patient-reported outcomes research is increasingly emphasized by funding sources and in health care regulation. Oversight is inevitable and the voice community must ensure that it can justify those treatments that we know are beneficial to patients through compelling and patient-centered outcomes research.

Cancer patient-reported outcomes assessment using wireless touch screen tablet computers

PURPOSE

To assess the feasibility of collecting patient-reported outcomes data with wireless touch screen tablet computers in the adult oncology palliative care setting.

METHODS

Patients were provided with tablet computers during scheduled clinic visits and answered online queries about their experience over the past week in the health domains of anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain interference, physical function, instrumental social support, sleep impairment, diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, anorexia, dyspnea, neuropathy, and spiritual values.

RESULTS

Content analysis of patient interviews indicates that wireless touch screen tablet computers are a feasible approach for collecting patient-reported outcome measures by palliative care cancer patients presenting in clinic. Most patients indicated that the questionnaire was easy to answer. However, all but one patient requested some form of assistance, and many reported difficulties attributable to a lack of familiarity with the device, interpretation of certain questions, and wireless connectivity-related issues.

CONCLUSIONS

This feasibility study demonstrates that tablet computers have the potential to efficiently and reliably collect patient-reported health status measures among palliative care cancer patients presenting in clinics. The use of these devices may lead to substantial improvements by making patient-reported outcomes available for clinical decision-making.

New frontiers in patient-reported outcomes: adverse event reporting, comparative effectiveness, and quality assessment

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are data elements directly reported by patients or their surrogates about experiences with care, including symptoms, functional status, or quality of life. PROs have commonly been evaluated in clinical trials for drug and medical device development. Interest is growing in the ability to integrate PROs into additional contexts, particularly product safety evaluation, comparative effectiveness research, and measurement of care quality. This interest reflects a growing focus on patient-centeredness in health care broadly and on provisions of the US Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Multiple initiatives demonstrate the feasibility and value of patient reporting in these areas. Inclusion of PROs in electronic health records and hospital patient portals, as well as longitudinal registries, can facilitate use of these data for multiple analytic purposes as well as enhance delivery of care and patient-provider communication. Challenges include the logistics and cost of implementing PRO programs; missing data, particularly from hard-to-reach and ill patients; and the need for standardization of outcome measures and electronic data representation. These challenges have been surmounted in limited initiatives and now must be translated to larger implementations.