Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1795-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) capture health information from the patient’s perspective that can be used when weighing up benefits, risks and costs of treatment. This is important for elective procedures such as those for coronary revascularisation. Patients should be involved in the development of PROMs to accurately capture outcomes that are important for the patient. The aims of this review are to identify if patients were involved in the development of cardiovascular-specific PROMs used for assessing outcomes from elective coronary revascularisation, and to explore what methods were used to capture patient perspectives.
PROMs for evaluating outcomes from elective coronary revascularisation were identified from a previous review and an updated systematic search. The studies describing the development of the PROMs were reviewed for information on patient input in their conceptual and/or item development.
24 PROMs were identified from a previous review and three additional PROMs were identified from the updated search. Full texts were obtained for 26 of the 27 PROMs. The 26 studies (11 multidimensional, 15 unidimensional) were reviewed. Only nine studies reported developing PROMs using patient input. For eight PROMs, the inclusion of patient input could not be judged due to insufficient information in the full text.
Only nine of the 26 reviewed PROMs used in elective coronary revascularisation reported involving patients in their conceptual and/or item development, while patient input was unclear for eight PROMs. These findings suggest that the patient’s perspective is often overlooked or poorly described in the development of PROMs.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 19 KB)11136_2018_1795_MOESM1_ESM.docx
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry patient-reported outcomes measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims.
McKenna S. P. (2011). Measuring patient-reported outcomes: Moving beyond misplaced common sense to hard science. BMC Medicine, 9(1), 1–12. CrossRef
Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Gwaltney, C. J., et al. (2011). Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: Part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value in Health, 14(8), 967–977. CrossRefPubMed
Stergiopoulos, K., & Brown, D. L. (2012). Initial coronary stent implantation with medical therapy vs medical therapy alone for stable coronary artery disease: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Annals of Internal Medicine, 172(4), 312–319. CrossRef
Pursnani, S., Korley, F., Gopaul, R., et al. (2012). Percutaneous coronary intervention versus optimal medical therapy in stable coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Circulation, 5(4), 476–490. PubMed
Mackintosh, A., Gibbons, E., Casanas i Comabella, C., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2010). A structured review of patient-reported outcome measures used in elective procedures for coronary revascularisation. Oxford: University of Oxford, Department of Public Health.
Baumeister, H., Abberger, B., Haschke, A., Boecker, M., Bengel, J., & Wirtz, M. (2013). Development and calibration of an item bank for the assessment of activities of daily living in cardiovascular patients using Rasch analysis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 133.
Wan, C., Li, H., Fan, X., et al. (2014). Development and validation of the coronary heart disease scale under the system of quality of life instruments for chronic diseases QLICD-CHD: Combinations of classical test theory and Generalizability Theory. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 82. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Ferrans, C. E. (1992). Conceptualizations of quality of life in cardiovascular research. Progress in Cardiovascular Nursing, 7(1), 2–6. PubMed
Ferrans, C. E., & Powers, M. J. (1985). Quality of life index: Development and psychometric properties. ANS, 8(1), 15–24.
Bennett, S. J. (1992). Perceived threats of individuals recovering from myocardial infarction. Heart and Lung, 21(4), 322–326. PubMed
The ENRICHD Investigators. (2000). Enhancing recovery in coronary heart disease patients (ENRICHD): Study design and methods. American Heart Journal, 139(1 Pt 1), 1–9.
Artinian, N. T., Duggan, C., & Miller, P. (1993). Age differences in patient recovery patterns following coronary artery bypass surgery. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2(6), 453–461.
Keresztes, P., Holm, K., Penckofer, S., & Merritt, S. (1993). Measurement of functional ability in patients with coronary artery disease. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1(1), 19–28. PubMed
LaPier, T. K., & Chunkwon, J. (2002). Development and content validity of the heart surgery symptom inventory. Acute Care Perspectives, 11, 5–12.
Haywood, K. L., Mars, T. S., Potter, R., Patel, S., Matharu, M., & Underwood, M. (2017). Assessing the impact of headaches and the outcomes of treatment: A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Cephalalgia. https://doi.org/10.1177/0333102417731348.
McLean, S., Holden, M. A., Potia, T., et al. (2017). Quality and acceptability of measures of exercise adherence in musculoskeletal settings: A systematic review. Rheumatology, 56(3), 426–438. PubMed
Boers, M., Brooks, P., Simon, L. S., Strand, V., & Tugwell, P. (2005). OMERACT: An international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 23(5 Suppl 39), S10–S13. PubMed
McNamara, R. L., Spatz, E. S., Kelley, T. A., et al. (2015). Standardized outcome measurement for patients with coronary artery disease: Consensus from the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM). Journal of the American Heart Association, 4(5), e001767 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Jenkins, C. D., Jono, R. T., Stanton, B. A., Stroup-Benham, C. A., (1990). The measurement of health-related quality of life: major dimensions identified by factor analysis. Social Science Medicine, 31(8), 925–931.
Rose, G. A., Blackburn, H. (1968). Cardiovascular survey methods. Monograph Series World Health Organization, 56, 1–188.
- Do patients have a say? A narrative review of the development of patient-reported outcome measures used in elective procedures for coronary revascularisation
Anna L. Barker
Darshini R. Ayton
Sue M. Evans
Johannes U. Stoelwinder
John J. McNeil
- Springer International Publishing