Skip to main content
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
ZOEKEN
MENU 1 2 3 4
main-content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 7/2020

03-03-2020

Core patient-reported outcome domains for routine clinical care in chronic pain management: patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perspective

Auteurs: Diana Zidarov, Alexia Zidarova-Carrié, Regina Visca, J. Marc Miller, Krista Brecht, Natacha Viens, Sara Ahmed

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 7/2020

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

To identify a core patient-reported outcome (PRO) domain set to be used in routine clinical care in settings offering specialized and supra-specialized multidisciplinary care to individuals with chronic pain (CP).

Methods

Two online cross-sectional surveys were administered: one with healthcare professionals (HCPs) and one with individuals with CP. Both surveys included domains of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) framework. The patients’ survey also included the Patient Generated Index (PGI). Areas affected by CP identified in the PGI were mapped to The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).

Results

According to HCPs, the five most relevant HRQoL domains to be assessed in routine clinical care were pain interference, pain intensity, physical function, anxiety and depression. The five areas that were the most valued by individuals with CP were recreation and leisure; global mental function; work and employment; household tasks and walking and moving. In total, these represented 74% of all nominated areas. When triangulating both frameworks (ICF/PROMIS) and perspectives (HCPs/patients), 10 core PRO domains were identified: pain interference, pain intensity, physical function, sleep disturbance, anxiety, depression, ability to participate in social roles and activities, fatigue, sleep-related impairments and self-efficacy.

Conclusions

This study identified 10 core PRO domains covering the physical, psychological and social consequences of CP on an individual’s life from the perspective of individuals with CP and HCPs. The results can help identify appropriate PRO measures to assess the outcomes of multidisciplinary interventions.
vorige artikel Psychometric properties of a single-item visual analog scale measuring goals of care in patients with advanced cancer
Literatuur
1.
Ho, A., & Nair, S. (2018). Chapter nine—Global chronic pain: Public and population health responses. In D. Z. Buchman & K. D. Davis (Eds.), Developments in neuroethics and bioethics (pp. 171–189). New York: Academic Press. CrossRef
2.
McCarberg, B. H., et al. (2008). The impact of pain on quality of life and the unmet needs of pain management: Results from pain sufferers and physicians participating in an Internet survey. American Journal of Therapeutics, 15(4), 312–320. PubMedCrossRef
3.
Dobkin, P. L., & Boothroyd, L. J. (2008). Organizing health services for patients with chronic pain: When there is a will there is a way. Pain Medication, 9(7), 881–889. CrossRef
4.
Institute of Medicine. (2011). Relieving pain in America: A blueprint for transforming prevention, care, education, and research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
5.
Ospina, M., & Harstall, C. (2003). Multidisciplinary pain programs for chronic pain: Evidence from systematic reviews . In HTA 30: Series a health technology assessment (p. 48). Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research.
6.
Stanos, S., et al. (2016). Rethinking chronic pain in a primary care setting. Postgraduate Medicine, 128(5), 502–515. PubMedCrossRef
7.
Noonan, V. K., et al. (2017). Montreal Accord on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) use series e Paper 3: Patient-reported outcomes can facilitate shared decision-making and guide self-management. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 89, 125–135. PubMedCrossRef
8.
Calvert, M., et al. (2019). Maximising the impact of patient reported outcome assessment for patients and society. BMJ, 364(k5267), 1–8.
9.
Chapman, J. R., et al. (2011). Evaluating common outcomes for measuring treatment success for chronic low back pain. Spine, 36(21 Suppl), S54–68. PubMedCrossRef
10.
Chiarotto, A., Terwee, C. B., & Ostelo, R. W. (2016). Choosing the right outcome measurement instruments for patients with low back pain. Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology, 30(6), 1003–1020. PubMedCrossRef
11.
Dansie, E. J., & Turk, D. C. (2013). Assessment of patients with chronic pain. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 111(1), 19e25. CrossRef
12.
Holmes, M. M., et al. (2017). The impact of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice for pain: A systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 26, 245–257. PubMedCrossRef
13.
Greenhalgh, J. (2009). The applications of PROs in clinical practice: What are they, do they work, and why? Quality of Life Research, 18(1), 115–123. PubMedCrossRef
14.
Santana, M. J., & Feeny, D. (2014). Framework to assess the effects of using patient-reported outcome measures in chronic care management. Quality of Life Research, 23(5), 1505–1513. PubMedCrossRef
15.
Dworkin, R. H., et al. (2005). Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain, 113(1–2), 9–19. PubMedCrossRef
16.
Kaiser, U., et al. (2018). Developing a core outcome domain set to assessing effectiveness of interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy: The VAPAIN consensus statement on core outcome domains. Pain, 159(4), 673–683. PubMedCrossRef
17.
Turk, D. C., et al. (2008). Identifying important outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: An IMMPACT survey of people with pain. Pain, 137(2), 276–285. PubMedCrossRef
18.
Deyo, R. A., et al. (1998). Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine, 23(18), 2003–2013. PubMedCrossRef
19.
Tardif, H., et al. (2017). Establishment of the Australasian electronic persistent pain outcomes collaboration. Pain Medicine, 18(6), 1007–1018. PubMed
20.
Zidarov, D., Visca, R., & Ahmed, S. (2019). Type of clinical outcomes used by healthcare professionals to evaluate health-related quality of life domains to inform clinical decision making for chronic pain management. Quality of Life Research, 28, 2761–2771. PubMedCrossRef
21.
Cella, D., et al. (2007). The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S3–s11. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Botella, M., et al. (2007). French adaptation of the Patient Generated Index: Metric characteristics and practical limitations. Psycho-Oncologie, 2, 131–140. CrossRef
23.
Callaghan, B. G., & Condie, M. E. (2003). A post-discharge quality of life outcome measure for lower limb amputees: Test-retest reliability and construct validity. Clinical Rehabilitation, 17, 858–864. PubMedCrossRef
24.
Tavernier, S. S., et al. (2011). Validity of the patient generated index as a quality-of-life measure in radiation oncology. Oncology Nursing Forum, 38(3), 19–29. CrossRef
25.
Ternent, L., et al. (2009). Measuring outcomes of importance to women with stress urinary incontinence. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 116(7), 719–725.
26.
Ruta, D. A., et al. (1994). A new approach to the measurement of qualityof life. The Patient-Generated Index. Medical Care, 32(11), 1109–1126. PubMedCrossRef
27.
Ruta, D. A., Garratt, A. M., & Russell, I. T. (1999). Patient centred assessment of quality of life for patients with four common conditions. Quality in Health Care, 8, 22–29. PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
28.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. PubMedCrossRef
29.
World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: WHO.
30.
Tucker, C. A., et al. (2014). Concept analysis of the patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) and the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Quality of Life Research, 23, 1677–1686. PubMedCrossRef
31.
Tucker, C. A., et al. (2014). Mapping the content of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) using the international classification of functioning, health and disability. Quality of Life Research, 23, 2431–2438. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
Boers, M., et al. (2014). Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0*. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 745e–753e. CrossRef
33.
Terwee, C. B., et al. (2018). COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patientreported outcome measures: A Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 27, 1159–1170. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
Idzerda, L., et al. (2014). Can we decide which outcomes should be measured in every clinical trial? A scoping review of the existing conceptual frameworks and processes to develop core outcome sets. Journal of Rheumatology, 41, 986–993. PubMedCrossRef
35.
Schmitt, J., et al. (2015). The Harmonizing Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) roadmap: A methodological framework to develop core sets of outcome measurements in dermatology. The Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 135(1), 24–30. PubMedCrossRef
36.
Ahmed, S., et al. (2017). Montreal Accord on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) use series e Paper 8: Patient-reported outcomes in electronic health records can inform clinical and policy decisions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 89, 160–167. PubMedCrossRef
37.
Boyce, M. B., Browne, J. P., & Greenhalgh, J. (2014). The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: A systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Quality & Safety, 23, 508–518. CrossRef
38.
Chiarotto, A., et al. (2015). Core outcome domains for clinical trials in non-specific low back pain. European Spine Journal, 24(6), 1127–1142. PubMedCrossRef
39.
Turk, C. D., et al. (2003). Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain, 106(3), 337–345. PubMedCrossRef
40.
Jackson, T., et al. (2014). Self-efficacy and chronic pain outcomes: A meta-analytic review. The Journal of Pain, 15(8), 800–814. PubMedCrossRef
41.
Kaiser, U., et al. (2016). Core outcome sets and multidimensional assessment tools for harmonizing outcome measure in chronic pain and back pain. Healthcare, 4(3), 63. PubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
Van Der Wees, P. J., et al. (2014). Integrating the use of patient-reported outcomes for both clinical practice and performance measurement: Views of experts from 3 countries. Milbank Quarterly, 92(4), 754–775. CrossRef
43.
Roland, M. O., & Morris, R. W. (1983). A study of the natural history of back pain. Part 1: Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low back pain. Spine, 8, 141–144. PubMedCrossRef
44.
Roland, M., & Fairbank, J. (2000). The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine, 25, 3115–3124. PubMedCrossRef
45.
Kopec, J. A., et al. (1996). The Quebec back pain disability scale: Conceptualization and development. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49, 151–161. PubMedCrossRef
46.
Duncan, E. A. S., & Murray, J. (2012). The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: A systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 12(1), 96. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Baumhauer, J. F. (2017). Patient-reported outcomes—Are they living up to their potential? New England Journal of Medicine, 377(1), 6–9. PubMedCrossRef
48.
Broderick, J. E., et al. (2013). Validity and reliability of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system instruments in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care & Research, 65(10), 1625–1633.
49.
Deyo, R. A., et al. (2016). Performance of a patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) short form in older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Pain Medicine, 17(2), 314–324. PubMed
50.
Hayes, R. D., et al. (2015). Responsiveness and minimally important difference for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 20-item physical functioning short form in a prospective observational study of rheumatoid arthritis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 74, 104–107. CrossRef
51.
Kroenke, K., et al. (2014). Operating characteristics of PROMIS four item depression and anxiety scales in primary care patients with chronic pain. Pain Medication, 15, 1892–1901. CrossRef
52.
Oude Voshaar, M. A., et al. (2015). Validity and measurement precision of the PROMIS physical function item bank and a content validity–driven 20-item short form in rheumatoid arthritis compared with traditional measures. Rheumatology, 54(12), 2221–2229. PubMed
53.
Deckert, S., et al. (2016). A systematic review of the outcomes reported in multimodal pain therapy for chronic pain. European Journal of Pain, 20(1), 51–63. PubMedCrossRef
54.
Metagegevens
Titel
Core patient-reported outcome domains for routine clinical care in chronic pain management: patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perspective
Auteurs
Diana Zidarov
Alexia Zidarova-Carrié
Regina Visca
J. Marc Miller
Krista Brecht
Natacha Viens
Sara Ahmed
Publicatiedatum
03-03-2020
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 7/2020
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02459-9

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2020

Quality of Life Research 7/2020 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Pain catastrophizing mediates the negative influence of pain and trait-anxiety on health-related quality of life in fibromyalgia

OriginalPaper

Socioeconomic burden and quality of life in meningioma patients

OriginalPaper

Exploring the burden of X-linked hypophosphatemia: a European multi-country qualitative study

OriginalPaper

How do doctors perceive and use patient quality of life? Findings from focus group interviews with hospital doctors and general practitioners

OriginalPaper

Exploring health state utility values of parents of children with a serious illness

Review

Communicating treatment risks and benefits to cancer patients: a systematic review of communication methods

Version: 0.2014.0