Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have increasingly been incorporated into clinical practice. Research suggests that PROMs could be viewed as active components of complex interventions and may affect the process and outcome of care. This systematic review examines PROMs in the context of treatment for non-malignant pain.
An electronic search on: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Cochrane Library and Web of Science identified relevant papers (February 2015). The inclusion criteria were: focused on implementing PROMs into clinical practice, adults, and primary data studies. Critical interpretive synthesis was used to synthesise qualitative and quantitative findings into a theoretical argument.
Thirteen eligible studies were identified. Synthesis suggested that PROMs may be included in the initial consultation to assess patients and for shared decision-making regarding patient care. During the course of treatment, PROMs can be used to track progress, evaluate treatment, and change the course of care; using PROMs may also influence the therapeutic relationship. Post-treatment, using PROMs might directly influence other outcomes such as pain and patient satisfaction. However, although studies have investigated these areas, evidence is weak and inconclusive.
Due to the poor quality, lack of generalisability and heterogeneity of these studies, it is not possible to provide a comprehensive understanding of how PROMs may impact clinical treatment of non-malignant pain. The literature suggests that PROMs enable pain assessment, decision-making, the therapeutic relationship, evaluation of treatment and may influence outcomes. Further research is needed to provide better evidence as to whether PROMs do indeed have any effects on these domains.
Valderas, J. M., Kotzeva, A., Espallargues, M., Guyatt, G., Ferrans, C. E., Halyard, M. Y., et al. (2008). The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: A systematic review of the literature. Quality of Life Research, 17(2), 179–193. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9295-0. CrossRefPubMed
Fitzpatrick, R. M., Davey, C., Buxton, M. J., & Jones, D. R. (1998). Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment, 2(14), 1–74. PubMed
Department of Health (2008). Guidance on the routine collection of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). UK
Devlin, N., & Appleby, J. (2010). Getting the most out of PROMs: Putting health outcomes at the heart of NHS decision-making. London
Appleby, J., & Devlin, N. J. (2005). Measuring NHS success: Can patients’ views on health outcomes help to manage performance?. London: King’s Fund.
Gilbody, S. M., House, A. O., & Sheldon, T. A. (2003). Outcome measurement in psychiatry: A critical review of outcomes measurement in psychiatric research and practice. York: University of York.
Bausewein, C., Daveson, B., Benalia, H., Simon, S. T., & Higginson, I. J. (2011). Outcome measurement in palliative care the essentials. London: PRISMA.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence. (2004). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE.
Greenfield, S., & Nelson, E. C. (1992). Recent developments and future issues in the use of health status assessment measures in clinical settings. Med Care, 30(5 Suppl), Ms23–41.
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(6), 508–518. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002524. CrossRef
Cullum, N., & Dumville, J. (2015). Systematic reviews of the effects of interventions. In D. A. Richards & I. R. Hallberg (Eds.), Complex interventions in health: An overview of research methods (pp. 57–65). Oxon: Routledge.
Köpke, S., Noyes, J., Chandler, J., & Meyer, G. (2015). Exploring complexity in systematic reviews of complex interventions. In D. A. Richards & I. R. Hallberg (Eds.), Complex interventions in health: An overview of research methods (pp. 73–79). Oxon: Routledge.
Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., et al. (2006). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 35. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-35. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Hannes, K. (2015). Building a case for mixed-methods reviews. In D. A. Richards & I. R. Hallberg (Eds.), Complex interventions in health: An overview of research methods (pp. 88–95). Oxon: Routledge.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2009). Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York.
Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: Wiley. CrossRef
Lewin, S., Glenton, C., Munthe-Kaas, H., Carlsen, B., Colvin, C. J., Gulmezoglu, M., et al. (2015). Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: An approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Medicine, 12(10), e1001895. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001895. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Gray, J. A. M., & Ison, E. (2009). Evidence- based Healthcare and Public Health: How to Make Decisions about Health Services and Public Health: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier.
Pluye, P., Robert, E., Cargo, M., Bartlett, G., O’Cathain, A., Griffiths, F., et al. (2011). Proposal: A mixed methods appraisal tool for systematic mixed studies reviews. http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com. Accessed 29 Sep 2014.
Hvitfeldt, H., Carli, C., Nelson, E. C., Mortenson, D. M., Ruppert, B. A., & Lindblad, S. (2009). Feed forward systems for patient participation and provider support: Adoption results from the original US context to Sweden and beyond. Quality Management in Healthcare, 18(4), 247–256. CrossRef
dos Santos Silva, M. A., de Mattos Pimenta, C. A., Monteiro, Lopes, & da Cruz, D. A. (2013). Pain assessment and training: The impact on pain control after cardiac surgery. Revista Da Escola De Enfermagem Da Usp, 47(1), 83–91.
Mularski, R. A., White-Chu, F., Overbay, D., Miller, L., Asch, S. M., & Ganzini, L. (2006). Measuring pain as the 5th vital sign does not improve quality of pain management. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21(6), 607–612. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00415.x. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Hadjistavropoulos, T., MacNab, Y. C., Lints-Martindale, A., Martin, R., & Hadjistavropoulos, H. (2009). Does routine pain assessment result in better care? Pain Research & Management, 14(3), 211–216. CrossRef
Ravaud, P., Keita, H., Porcher, R., Durand-Stocco, C., Desmonts, J. M., & Mantz, J. (2004). Randomized clinical trial to assess the effect of an educational programme designed to improve nurses’ assessment and recording of postoperative pain. British Journal of Surgery, 91(6), 692–698. doi: 10.1002/bjs.4506. CrossRefPubMed
- The impact of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice for pain: a systematic review
Michelle M. Holmes
Felicity L. Bishop
- Springer International Publishing