Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patient-reported outcomes measurement and management with innovative methodologies and technologies

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Successful integration of modern psychometrics and advanced informatics in patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measurement and management can potentially maximize the value of health outcomes research and optimize the delivery of quality patient care. Unlike the traditional labor-intensive paper-and-pencil data collection method, item response theory-based computerized adaptive testing methodologies coupled with novel technologies provide an integrated environment to collect, analyze and present ready-to-use PRO data for informed and shared decision-making. This article describes the needs, challenges and solutions for accurate, efficient and cost-effective PRO data acquisition and dissemination means in order to provide critical and timely PRO information necessary to actively support and enhance routine patient care in busy clinical settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Patrick, D. L., & Chiang, Y. P. (2000). Measurement of health outcomes in treatment effectiveness evaluations: conceptual and methodological challenges. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), II14–II25.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. McHorney, C. A. (1997). Generic health measurement: past accomplishments and a measurement paradigm for the 21st century. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127(8_Part_2), 743–750.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Donaldson, M. S. (2004). Taking stock of health-related quality-of-life measurement in oncology practice in the United States. Journal of National Cancer Institute. Monographs, 33, 155–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. White, E. B. (1998). Outcomes: essential information for clinical decision support: an interview with Ellen B. White. Interview by Melinda L. Orlando. Journal of Health Care Finance, 24(3), 71–81.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ware, J. E. Jr. (2003). Conceptualization and measurement of health-related quality of life: comments on an evolving field. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84(4 Suppl 2), S43–S51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Emery, M. P., Perrier, L. L., & Acquadro, C. (2005). Patient-reported outcome and quality of life instruments database (PROQOLID): frequently asked questions. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 3, 12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (2006) US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4(1), 79.

  8. Bradley, C. (2006). Feedback on the FDA’s February 2006 draft guidance on patient reported outcome (PRO) measures from a developer of PRO measures. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Willke, R. J., Burke, L. B., & Erickson, P. (2004). Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels. Controlled Clinical Trials, 25(6), 535–552.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Higginson, I. J., & Carr, A. J. (2001). Measuring quality of life: using quality of life measures in the clinical setting. BMJ, 322(7297), 1297–1300.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Jacobsen, P. B., Davis, K., & Cella, D. (2002). Assessing quality of life in research and clinical practice. Oncology (Williston Park), 16(9 Suppl 10), 133–139.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Morris, J., Perez, D., & McNoe, B. (1998). The use of quality of life data in clinical practice. Quality of Life Research, 7(1), 85–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bezjak, A., Ng, P., Taylor, K., MacDonald, K., & Depetrillo, A. D. (1997). A preliminary survey of oncologists’ perceptions of quality of life information. Psychooncology, 6(2), 107–113.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Davis, K., & Cella, D. (2002). Assessing quality of life in oncology clinical practice: a review of barriers and critical success factors. Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management, 9, 327–332.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ruta, D., Coutts, A., & Abdalla, M., et al. (1995). Feasibility of monitoring patient based health outcomes in a routine hospital setting. Quality of Health Care, 4(3), 161–165.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Deyo, R. A., & Patrick, D. L. (1989). Barriers to the use of health status measures in clinical investigation, patient care, and policy research. Medical Care, 27(3 Suppl), S254–S268.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. McHorney , C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995). Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Quality of Life Research, 4(4), 293–307.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rubenstein, L. V., McCoy, J. M., & Cope, D. W., et al. (1995). Improving patient quality of life with feedback to physicians about functional status. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 10(11), 607–614.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Nelson, E. C., Landgraf, J. M., Hays, R. D., Wasson, J. H., & Kirk, J. W. (1990). The functional status of patients. How can it be measured in physicians’ offices? Medical Care, 28(12), 1111–1126.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bezjak, A., Ng, P., Taylor, K., MacDonald, K., & Depetrillo, A. D. (1997). A preliminary survey of oncologists’ perceptions of quality of life information. Psychooncology, 6(2), 107–113.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Taylor, K. M., Macdonald, K. G., Bezjak, A., Ng P., & DePetrillo, A. D. (1996). Physicians’ perspective on quality of life: an exploratory study of oncologists. Quality of Life Research, 5(1), 5–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bates , D. W., & Gawande, A. A. (2003). Improving safety with information technology. The New England Journal of Medicine 348(25), 19 June 2003, pp. 2526–2534.

  23. Koppel, R., Metlay, J. P., & Cohen, A., et al. (2005). Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. The Journal of American Medical Association, 293(10), 1197–1203.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Yancik, R., Edwards, B. K., & Yates, J. W. (1989). Assessing the quality of life of cancer patients: Practical issues in study implementation. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 7(4), 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., Rogers, H. J. (2000). Fundamentals of item response theory; 1991.

  26. Humana buys into Web-based surveys to ID high-risk members. Health Demand Dis Manag, 6(6), 89–92.

  27. Wyatt, J. C. (2000). When to use web-based surveys. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association, 7(4), 426–429.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Naylor, M. R., Helzer, J. E., Naud, S., & Keefe, F. J. (2002). Automated telephone as an adjunct for the treatment of chronic pain: a pilot study. Journal of Pain, 3(6), 429–438.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Piette, J. D. (2000). Interactive voice response systems in the diagnosis and management of chronic disease. American Journal of Management Care, 6(7), 817–827.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Ware, J. E. Jr., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cella, D. F., Tulsky, D. S., & Gray, G., et al. (1993). The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 11(3), 570–579.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., & Bergman, B., et al. (1993). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of National Cancer Institute, 85(5), 365–376.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Eremenco, S. L., Cella, D., & Arnold, B. J. (2005). A comprehensive method for the translation, cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Evaluation &the Health Professions, 28(2), 212–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bowden, A., & Fox-Rushby, J. A. (2003). A systematic and critical review of the process of translation and adaptation of generic health-related quality of life measures in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, South America. Society of Science Medicine, 57(7), 1289–1306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Maneesriwongul, W., & Dixon, J. K. (2004). Instrument translation process: a methods review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(2), 175–186.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. HIPAA privacy rule and public health. Guidance from CDC and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. MMWR Morb Mortal Weekly Report 52 Suppl, 1–17, 19–20, 2 May 2003.

  37. Lax, J. R. (2002). The modified HIPAA Privacy Rule. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Optometry, 73(10), 635–645.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Nosowsky, R., & Giordano, T. J. (2006). The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) privacy rule: implications for clinical research. Annual Review of Medicine, 57, 575–590.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Wainer H, Dorans NJ, Green BF, et al. (1990).Computerized adaptive testing: A primer.

  40. Ware, J. E. Jr., Bjorner, J. B., & Kosinski, M. (2000). Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: a brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scales. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), II73–II82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ware, J. E. Jr., Kosinski, M., & Bjorner, J. B., et al. (2003). Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact. Quality of Life Research, 12(8), 935–952.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Payne, T. H. (2000). Computer decision support systems. Chest. 118(2 Suppl), 47S–52S.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Cella , D. (2006). The FDA, the person with cancer: give PROs a chance. Oncology (Williston Park), 20(4), 436.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Fries, J. F., Bruce, B., & Cella, D. (2005). The promise of PROMIS: using item response theory to improve assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Clinical Experimental Rheumatology, 23(5 Suppl 39), S53–57.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Reeve, B. B. (2006). Special issues for building computerized-adaptive tests for measuring patient-reported outcomes: The National Institute of Health’s Investment in New Technology. Medical Care, 44(11 Suppl 3), S198–S204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health (R21CA113191).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Buehler Center on Aging, Health & Society, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 750 N. Lake Shore Drive, Suite 601, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA

    Chih-Hung Chang

Authors
  1. Chih-Hung Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chih-Hung Chang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chang, CH. Patient-reported outcomes measurement and management with innovative methodologies and technologies. Qual Life Res 16 (Suppl 1), 157–166 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9196-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9196-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation