Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
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.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
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
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
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. CrossRef
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
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for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance.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.
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.
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.
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. CrossRef
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.
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. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., Rogers, H. J. (2000). Fundamentals of item response theory; 1991.
Humana buys into Web-based surveys to ID high-risk members. Health Demand Dis Manag, 6(6), 89–92.
Wyatt, J. C. (2000). When to use web-based surveys. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association, 7(4), 426–429.
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.
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
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. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
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.
Lax, J. R. (2002). The modified HIPAA Privacy Rule. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Optometry, 73(10), 635–645. PubMed
Wainer H, Dorans NJ, Green BF, et al. (1990). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer.
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
Cella , D. (2006). The FDA, the person with cancer: give PROs a chance. Oncology (Williston Park), 20(4), 436.
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.
- Patient-reported outcomes measurement and management with innovative methodologies and technologies
- Springer Netherlands