Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in:

28-05-2019

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

Auteurs: Diana Zidarov, Regina Visca, Sara Ahmed

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 10/2019

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

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) domains currently assessed by healthcare professionals (HCPs) in secondary and tertiary hospital-based chronic pain clinics and the type of clinical outcomes (CO) used.

Methods

Electronic cross-sectional survey (May to September 2016) based on domains of HRQoL included in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) framework.

Results

HCPs response rate was 53% (36/68). Their mean clinical experience was 14.8 years (± 11.1), and their mean experience treating chronic pain (CP) population was 10.2 years (± 7.8). All PROMIS-HRQoL domains were assessed by HCPs (range 28–97%, mean = 64%) with a preponderance of domains related to physical health (mean = 82%). Standardized outcome measures (OMs) including performance outcomes and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were not frequently used (mean 0.5% and 3%, respectively) for assessing HRQoL domains compared to clinician reported outcomes (patient interviews, patient observation) (mean = 87%). Forty different OMs for assessing HRQoL domains were reported, and 30% of OMs were used by more than one HCP. HCPs expressed a need (range from 2.3 to 26.3%) for using more than one type of CO for assessing most domains of HRQoL (range from 2.3 to 26.3%) with a preference of using more PROs combined with CROs.

Conclusions

All domains of HRQoL are assessed by at least some HCPs for chronic pain management. Standardized OMs including performance-based measures and PROs were not frequently used, and there was no consistent use of the same OM across HCPs. A consensus among different stakeholders in chronic pain management on core domains of HRQoL and their associated OMs to promote a more evidence-based assessment is needed.
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Institute of Medicine. (2011). Relieving pain in America: A blueprint for transforming prevention, care, education, and research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Institute of Medicine. (2011). Relieving pain in America: A blueprint for transforming prevention, care, education, and research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
2.
go back to reference van Hecke, O., Torranc, N., & Smith, B. H. (2013). Chronic pain epidemiology and its clinical relevance. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 111(1), 13–18.PubMedCrossRef van Hecke, O., Torranc, N., & Smith, B. H. (2013). Chronic pain epidemiology and its clinical relevance. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 111(1), 13–18.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Jackson, T. P., Stabile, V. S., & McQueen, K. K. (2014). The global burden of chronic pain. ASA Newsletter., 78(6), 24–27. Jackson, T. P., Stabile, V. S., & McQueen, K. K. (2014). The global burden of chronic pain. ASA Newsletter., 78(6), 24–27.
4.
go back to reference Ospina, M., Harstall C. (2002). Prevalence of chronic pain: An overview. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research. AHFMR Report - HTA 29. Ospina, M., Harstall C. (2002). Prevalence of chronic pain: An overview. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research. AHFMR Report - HTA 29.
5.
go back to reference Woolf, A. D., & Pfleger, B. (2003). Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 81, 646–656.PubMedPubMedCentral Woolf, A. D., & Pfleger, B. (2003). Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 81, 646–656.PubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Breivik, H., et al. (2006). Survey of chronic pain in Europe: Prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. European Journal of Pain, 10, 287–333.PubMedCrossRef Breivik, H., et al. (2006). Survey of chronic pain in Europe: Prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. European Journal of Pain, 10, 287–333.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Ojala, T., et al. (2015). Chronic pain affects the whole person—A phenomenological study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 37(4), 363–371.PubMedCrossRef Ojala, T., et al. (2015). Chronic pain affects the whole person—A phenomenological study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 37(4), 363–371.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference McWilliams, I. A., Goodwin, R. D., & Cox, B. J. (2004). Depression and anxiety associated with three pain conditions: Results from a nationally representative sample. Pain, 111, 77–83.PubMedCrossRef McWilliams, I. A., Goodwin, R. D., & Cox, B. J. (2004). Depression and anxiety associated with three pain conditions: Results from a nationally representative sample. Pain, 111, 77–83.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Racine, M. (2017). Chronic pain and suicide risk: A comprehensive review. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry, 87(1), 269–280. Racine, M. (2017). Chronic pain and suicide risk: A comprehensive review. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry, 87(1), 269–280.
10.
go back to reference Bunzli, S., et al. (2013). Lives on hold: A qualitative synthesis exploring the experience of chronic low-back pain. Clinical Journal of Pain, 29, 907–916.PubMedCrossRef Bunzli, S., et al. (2013). Lives on hold: A qualitative synthesis exploring the experience of chronic low-back pain. Clinical Journal of Pain, 29, 907–916.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference 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. 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.
13.
go back to reference Hague, M., & Shenker, N. (2014). How to investigate: Chronic pain. Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology, 28(6), 860–874.CrossRef Hague, M., & Shenker, N. (2014). How to investigate: Chronic pain. Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology, 28(6), 860–874.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Stanos, S., et al. (2016). Rethinking chronic pain in a primary care setting. Postgraduate Medicine, 128(5), 502–515.PubMedCrossRef Stanos, S., et al. (2016). Rethinking chronic pain in a primary care setting. Postgraduate Medicine, 128(5), 502–515.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Fillingim, R. B., et al. (2016). Assessment of chronic pain: Domains, methods, and mechanisms. Journal of Pain, 17(9 Suppl), T10–T20.PubMedCrossRef Fillingim, R. B., et al. (2016). Assessment of chronic pain: Domains, methods, and mechanisms. Journal of Pain, 17(9 Suppl), T10–T20.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Turk, D. C., et al. (2016). Assessment of psychosocial and functional impact of chronic pain. Journal of Pain, 17(9 Suppl), T21–T49.PubMedCrossRef Turk, D. C., et al. (2016). Assessment of psychosocial and functional impact of chronic pain. Journal of Pain, 17(9 Suppl), T21–T49.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Mayo, N. E., et al. (2017). Montreal accord on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) use series—Paper 2: Terminology proposed to measure what matters in health. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 89, 119–124.PubMedCrossRef Mayo, N. E., et al. (2017). Montreal accord on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) use series—Paper 2: Terminology proposed to measure what matters in health. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 89, 119–124.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Walton, M. K., et al. (2015). Clinical outcome assessments: A conceptual foundation—Report of the ISPOR clinical outcomes assessment emerging good practices task force. Value Health, 18, 741–752.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Walton, M. K., et al. (2015). Clinical outcome assessments: A conceptual foundation—Report of the ISPOR clinical outcomes assessment emerging good practices task force. Value Health, 18, 741–752.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Turk, D. C., et al. (2006). Developing patient-reported outcome measures for pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain, 125(3), 208–215.PubMedCrossRef Turk, D. C., et al. (2006). Developing patient-reported outcome measures for pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain, 125(3), 208–215.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Turk, D. C., & Melzack, R. (2011). The measurement of pain and the assessment of people experiencing pain. In D. C. Turk & R. Melzack (Eds.), Handbook of pain assessment (pp. 3–16). New York: Guilford Publications. Turk, D. C., & Melzack, R. (2011). The measurement of pain and the assessment of people experiencing pain. In D. C. Turk & R. Melzack (Eds.), Handbook of pain assessment (pp. 3–16). New York: Guilford Publications.
21.
go back to reference 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 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.
go back to reference Dworkin, R. H., et al. (2005). Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain, 113(1–2), 9–19.PubMedCrossRef Dworkin, R. H., et al. (2005). Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain, 113(1–2), 9–19.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Hinton, P. M., et al. (2010). Outcome measures and their everyday use in chiropractic practice. The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, 54(2), 118–131.PubMedPubMedCentral Hinton, P. M., et al. (2010). Outcome measures and their everyday use in chiropractic practice. The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, 54(2), 118–131.PubMedPubMedCentral
24.
go back to reference MacDermid, J. C., et al. (2013). Use of outcome measures in managing neck pain: An international multidisciplinary survey. The Open Orthopaedics Journal, 7, 506–520.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef MacDermid, J. C., et al. (2013). Use of outcome measures in managing neck pain: An international multidisciplinary survey. The Open Orthopaedics Journal, 7, 506–520.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
go back to reference 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 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
28.
go back to reference Powers, J. H., et al. (2017). Clinician-reported outcome assessments of treatment benefit: Report of the ISPOR clinical outcome assessment emerging good practices task force. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 20(1), 2–14.CrossRef Powers, J. H., et al. (2017). Clinician-reported outcome assessments of treatment benefit: Report of the ISPOR clinical outcome assessment emerging good practices task force. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 20(1), 2–14.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference U. S. Department of Health Human Services, F.D.A.C.f.D.E.R., F.D.A.C.f.B.E.R. U. S. Department of Health Human Services, and F.D.A.C.f.D.R.H. U. S. Department of Health Human Services. (2006). 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, 79.CrossRef U. S. Department of Health Human Services, F.D.A.C.f.D.E.R., F.D.A.C.f.B.E.R. U. S. Department of Health Human Services, and F.D.A.C.f.D.R.H. U. S. Department of Health Human Services. (2006). 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, 79.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Melzack, R. (2003). Introduction: The pain revolution. In R. Melzack & P. D. Wall (Eds.), Handbook of pain management (pp. 3–6). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. Melzack, R. (2003). Introduction: The pain revolution. In R. Melzack & P. D. Wall (Eds.), Handbook of pain management (pp. 3–6). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
31.
go back to reference Chapman, J. R., et al. (2011). Evaluating common outcomes for measuring treatment success for chronic low back pain. Spine, 36(21 Suppl), S54–S68.PubMedCrossRef Chapman, J. R., et al. (2011). Evaluating common outcomes for measuring treatment success for chronic low back pain. Spine, 36(21 Suppl), S54–S68.PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Deyo, R. A., et al. (1998). Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine, 23(18), 2003–2013.PubMedCrossRef Deyo, R. A., et al. (1998). Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine, 23(18), 2003–2013.PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference 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 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
35.
go back to reference 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 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
36.
go back to reference Clarke, J. L., et al. (2017). An innovative approach to health care delivery for patients with chronic conditions. Popul Health Manag., 20(1), 23–30.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Clarke, J. L., et al. (2017). An innovative approach to health care delivery for patients with chronic conditions. Popul Health Manag., 20(1), 23–30.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Martínez-González, N. A., et al. (2014). Integrated care programmes for adults with chronic conditions: A meta-review. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 26(5), 561–570.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Martínez-González, N. A., et al. (2014). Integrated care programmes for adults with chronic conditions: A meta-review. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 26(5), 561–570.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
go back to reference 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 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
39.
go back to reference 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 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.
go back to reference Hung, M., et al. (2014). Computerized adaptive testing using the PROMIS physical function item bank reduces test burden with less ceiling effects compared with the short musculoskeletal function assessment in orthopaedic trauma patients. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 28(8), 439–443.PubMedCrossRef Hung, M., et al. (2014). Computerized adaptive testing using the PROMIS physical function item bank reduces test burden with less ceiling effects compared with the short musculoskeletal function assessment in orthopaedic trauma patients. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 28(8), 439–443.PubMedCrossRef
43.
go back to reference Broderick, J. E., et al. (2013). Validity and reliability of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system instruments in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res, 65(10), 1625–1633. Broderick, J. E., et al. (2013). Validity and reliability of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system instruments in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res, 65(10), 1625–1633.
44.
go back to reference 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 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
46.
go back to reference Proctor, E., et al. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy In Mental Health, 38(2), 65–76.PubMedCrossRef Proctor, E., et al. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy In Mental Health, 38(2), 65–76.PubMedCrossRef
47.
go back to reference Eilayyan, O., et al. (2018). Identifying domains of health-related quality of life: Individuals with Low back pain’s perspective. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 106. Eilayyan, O., et al. (2018). Identifying domains of health-related quality of life: Individuals with Low back pain’s perspective. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 106.
Metagegevens
Titel
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
Auteurs
Diana Zidarov
Regina Visca
Sara Ahmed
Publicatiedatum
28-05-2019
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 10/2019
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02215-8

Andere artikelen Uitgave 10/2019

Quality of Life Research 10/2019 Naar de uitgave

Responses to "Advancing quality‑of‑life research by deepening our understanding of response shift" by Bruce D. Rapkin & Carolyn E. Schwartz

Measurement of appraisal is a valuable adjunct to the current spine outcome tools: a clinician’s perspective on the Rapkin and Schwartz commentary