A systematic review of randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)

S Ishaque, J Karnon, G Chen, R Nair, A B Salter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) could play an important role in identifying patients’ needs and goals in clinical encounters, improving communication and decision-making with clinicians, while making care more patient-centred. Comprehensive evidence that PROMS are an effective intervention is lacking in single randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: A systematic search was performed using controlled vocabulary related to the terms: clinical care setting and patient-reported outcome. English language studies were included if they were a RCT with a PROM as an intervention in a patient population. Included studies were analysed and their methodologic quality was appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016034182). Results: Of 4302 articles initially identified, 115 underwent full-text review resulting in 22 studies reporting on 25 comparisons. The majority of included studies were conducted in USA (11), among cancer patients (11), with adult participants only (20). Statistically significant and robust improvements were reported in the pre-specified outcomes of the process of care (2) and health care (3). Additionally, five, eight and three statistically significant but possibly non-robust findings were reported in the process of care, health and patient satisfaction outcomes, respectively. Conclusions: Overall, studies that compared PROM to standard care either reported a positive effect or were not powered to find pre-specified differences. There is justification for the use of a PROM as part of standard care, but further adequately powered studies on their use in different contexts are necessary for a more comprehensive evidence base.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)567-592
Number of pages26
JournalQuality of Life Research
Volume28
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2019

Keywords

  • Clinical care
  • Health-related quality of life
  • HRQL
  • HRQoL
  • Patient outcomes
  • Patient-reported outcome measures
  • Patient-reported outcomes
  • PROMs
  • QOL
  • Quality of life

Cite this

@article{dfd10617ab614e23967183bcd254b221,
title = "A systematic review of randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)",
abstract = "Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) could play an important role in identifying patients’ needs and goals in clinical encounters, improving communication and decision-making with clinicians, while making care more patient-centred. Comprehensive evidence that PROMS are an effective intervention is lacking in single randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: A systematic search was performed using controlled vocabulary related to the terms: clinical care setting and patient-reported outcome. English language studies were included if they were a RCT with a PROM as an intervention in a patient population. Included studies were analysed and their methodologic quality was appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016034182). Results: Of 4302 articles initially identified, 115 underwent full-text review resulting in 22 studies reporting on 25 comparisons. The majority of included studies were conducted in USA (11), among cancer patients (11), with adult participants only (20). Statistically significant and robust improvements were reported in the pre-specified outcomes of the process of care (2) and health care (3). Additionally, five, eight and three statistically significant but possibly non-robust findings were reported in the process of care, health and patient satisfaction outcomes, respectively. Conclusions: Overall, studies that compared PROM to standard care either reported a positive effect or were not powered to find pre-specified differences. There is justification for the use of a PROM as part of standard care, but further adequately powered studies on their use in different contexts are necessary for a more comprehensive evidence base.",
keywords = "Clinical care, Health-related quality of life, HRQL, HRQoL, Patient outcomes, Patient-reported outcome measures, Patient-reported outcomes, PROMs, QOL, Quality of life",
author = "S Ishaque and J Karnon and G Chen and R Nair and Salter, {A B}",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1007/s11136-018-2016-z",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "567--592",
journal = "Quality of Life Research",
issn = "0962-9343",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "3",

}

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). / Ishaque, S; Karnon, J; Chen, G; Nair, R; Salter, A B.

In: Quality of Life Research, Vol. 28, No. 3, 03.2019, p. 567-592.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A systematic review of randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)

AU - Ishaque, S

AU - Karnon, J

AU - Chen, G

AU - Nair, R

AU - Salter, A B

PY - 2019/3

Y1 - 2019/3

N2 - Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) could play an important role in identifying patients’ needs and goals in clinical encounters, improving communication and decision-making with clinicians, while making care more patient-centred. Comprehensive evidence that PROMS are an effective intervention is lacking in single randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: A systematic search was performed using controlled vocabulary related to the terms: clinical care setting and patient-reported outcome. English language studies were included if they were a RCT with a PROM as an intervention in a patient population. Included studies were analysed and their methodologic quality was appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016034182). Results: Of 4302 articles initially identified, 115 underwent full-text review resulting in 22 studies reporting on 25 comparisons. The majority of included studies were conducted in USA (11), among cancer patients (11), with adult participants only (20). Statistically significant and robust improvements were reported in the pre-specified outcomes of the process of care (2) and health care (3). Additionally, five, eight and three statistically significant but possibly non-robust findings were reported in the process of care, health and patient satisfaction outcomes, respectively. Conclusions: Overall, studies that compared PROM to standard care either reported a positive effect or were not powered to find pre-specified differences. There is justification for the use of a PROM as part of standard care, but further adequately powered studies on their use in different contexts are necessary for a more comprehensive evidence base.

AB - Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) could play an important role in identifying patients’ needs and goals in clinical encounters, improving communication and decision-making with clinicians, while making care more patient-centred. Comprehensive evidence that PROMS are an effective intervention is lacking in single randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: A systematic search was performed using controlled vocabulary related to the terms: clinical care setting and patient-reported outcome. English language studies were included if they were a RCT with a PROM as an intervention in a patient population. Included studies were analysed and their methodologic quality was appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016034182). Results: Of 4302 articles initially identified, 115 underwent full-text review resulting in 22 studies reporting on 25 comparisons. The majority of included studies were conducted in USA (11), among cancer patients (11), with adult participants only (20). Statistically significant and robust improvements were reported in the pre-specified outcomes of the process of care (2) and health care (3). Additionally, five, eight and three statistically significant but possibly non-robust findings were reported in the process of care, health and patient satisfaction outcomes, respectively. Conclusions: Overall, studies that compared PROM to standard care either reported a positive effect or were not powered to find pre-specified differences. There is justification for the use of a PROM as part of standard care, but further adequately powered studies on their use in different contexts are necessary for a more comprehensive evidence base.

KW - Clinical care

KW - Health-related quality of life

KW - HRQL

KW - HRQoL

KW - Patient outcomes

KW - Patient-reported outcome measures

KW - Patient-reported outcomes

KW - PROMs

KW - QOL

KW - Quality of life

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054524330&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11136-018-2016-z

DO - 10.1007/s11136-018-2016-z

M3 - Article

VL - 28

SP - 567

EP - 592

JO - Quality of Life Research

JF - Quality of Life Research

SN - 0962-9343

IS - 3

ER -