Explore the vast range of titles available.

Introduction Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are direct reports from patients about the status of their health condition without amendment or interpretation by others. Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are the tools used to measure PROs; they are usually validated questionnaires patients complete by self‐assessing their health status. Whilst the benefits of using PROs and PROMs to guide real‐time patient care are well established, they have not been adopted by many oncology institutions worldwide. This literature review aimed to examine the barriers associated with using PROs and PROMs in routine oncology care. Methods A literature search was conducted across EMBASE, Medline and CINAHL databases. Studies detailing barriers to routine PRO use for real‐time patient care were included; those focusing on PRO collection in the research setting were excluded. Results Of 1165 records captured, 14 studies informed this review. At the patient level, patient time, incapacity and difficulty using electronic devices to complete PROMs were prominent barriers. At the health professional level, major barriers included health professionals’ lack of time and knowledge to meaningfully interpret and integrate PRO data into their clinical practice and the inability for PRO data to be acted upon. Prominent barriers at the service level included difficulties integrating PROs and PROMs into clinical workflows and inadequate information technology (IT) infrastructures for easy PRO collection. Conclusion This review has outlined potential barriers to routine PRO use in the oncology setting. Such barriers should be considered when implementing PROs into routine clinical practice. Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are direct reports from patients about the status of their health condition without amendment or interpretation by others. This review article outlines potential barriers to routine PRO use in the oncology setting. Such barriers should be considered when implementing PROs into routine clinical practice.

With the rise of digital health technologies and telemedicine, the need for evidence-based evaluation is growing. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are recommended as an essential part of the evaluation of telemedicine. For the first time, a systematic review has been conducted to investigate the use of PROMs and PREMs in the evaluation studies of telemedicine covering all application types and medical purposes. This study investigates the following research questions: in which scenarios are PROMs and PREMs collected for evaluation purposes, which PROM and PREM outcome domains have been covered and how often, which outcome measurement instruments have been used and how often, does the selection and quantity of PROMs and PREMs differ between study types and application types, and has the use of PROMs and PREMs changed over time. We conducted a systematic literature search of the MEDLINE and Embase databases and included studies published from inception until April 2, 2020. We included studies evaluating telemedicine with patients as the main users; these studies reported PROMs and PREMs within randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, noncontrolled trials, and feasibility trials in English and German. Of the identified 2671 studies, 303 (11.34%) were included; of the 303 studies, 67 (22.1%) were feasibility studies, 70 (23.1%) were noncontrolled trials, 20 (6.6%) were controlled trials, and 146 (48.2%) were randomized controlled trials. Health-related quality of life (n=310; mean 1.02, SD 1.05), emotional function (n=244; mean 0.81, SD 1.18), and adherence (n=103; mean 0.34, SD 0.53) were the most frequently assessed outcome domains. Self-developed PROMs were used in 21.4% (65/303) of the studies, and self-developed PREMs were used in 22.3% (68/303). PROMs (n=884) were assessed more frequently than PREMs (n=234). As the evidence level of the studies increased, the number of PROMs also increased (τ=-0.45), and the number of PREMs decreased (τ=0.35). Since 2000, not only has the number of studies using PROMs and PREMs increased, but the level of evidence and the number of outcome measurement instruments used have also increased, with the number of PREMs permanently remaining at a lower level. There have been increasingly more studies, particularly high-evidence studies, which use PROMs and PREMs to evaluate telemedicine. PROMs have been used more frequently than PREMs. With the increasing maturity stage of telemedicine applications and higher evidence level, the use of PROMs increased in line with the recommendations of evaluation guidelines. Health-related quality of life and emotional function were measured in almost all the studies. Simultaneously, health literacy as a precondition for using the application adequately, alongside proper training and guidance, has rarely been reported. Further efforts should be pursued to standardize PROM and PREM collection in evaluation studies of telemedicine.

Due to the increasing complexity of cancer treatment, ensuring safety and maintaining the quality of life during treatment are important issues. Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology are essential for assessing patient symptoms. A feasibility study was undertaken on breast cancer patients by building a PRO data collection system based on LINE, one of the most popular social network service applications in Japan. In this study, one or more predefined PRO questions for each breast cancer patient's clinical situation were sent to the patient’s LINE application daily. The patient selected a predefined answer by tapping the screen, but no free‐text answers were allowed. Seventy‐three patients were enrolled. The median observation period was 435 days (84‐656 days), and the total number of PROs collected was 16,417, with a mean of 224.9 reports per patient. Patients on adjuvant endocrine therapy were notified of 2.5 questions per week, and the median number of responses per week and response rate were 2.387 (1.687‐11.627) and 95.5%, respectively. Analyzing the results by age group, the number of responses from those aged 60 and above was equal to or higher than that of the younger age group. It was also possible to track each patient’s PROs accurately. These results suggested that the design of the system, based on an application used daily, instead of using specifically prepared applications for collecting electronic PROs, was the reason for the favorable acceptance from patients and the satisfactory response rate from all age groups, including the elderly. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of the LINE electronic patient‐reported outcome (ePRO) system to be accepted by breast cancer patients and to successfully collect ePRO data using LINE, which is the most popular social network service application in Japan. Our study suggests that the acceptance of the system by the patients was favorable, and the response rate was satisfactory. Therefore, building a PRO reporting system based on the applications frequently used by the citizens of a country is likely to contribute to improving the response rate.

There is a growing interest in the collection and use of patient reported outcomes because they not only provide clinicians with crucial information, but can also be used for economic evaluation and enable public health decisions. During the collection phase of PROMs, there are several factors that can potentially bias the analysis of PROM data. It is crucial that the collected data are reliable and comparable. The aim of this paper was to analyze the type of bias that have already been taken into consideration in the literature. A literature review was conducted by the authors searching on PubMed database, after the selection process, 24 studies were included in this review, mostly regarding orthopedics. Seven types of bias were identified: Non-response bias, collection method related bias, fatigue bias, timing bias, language bias, proxy response bias, and recall bias. Regarding fatigue bias and timing bias, only one study was found; for non-response bias, collection mode related bias, and recall bias, no agreement was found between studies. For these reasons, further research on this subject is needed in order to assess each bias type in relation to each medical specialty, and therefore find correction methods for reliable and comparable data for analysis.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are valuable for shared decision making and research. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires used to measure PROs, such as health-related quality of life (HRQL). Although core outcome sets for trials and clinical practice have been developed separately, they, as well as other initiatives, recommend different PROs and PROMs. In research and clinical practice, different PROMs are used (some generic, some disease-specific), which measure many different things. This is a threat to the validity of research and clinical findings in the field of diabetes. In this narrative review, we aim to provide recommendations for the selection of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs for people with diabetes for use in clinical practice and research. Based on a general conceptual framework of PROs, we suggest that relevant PROs to measure in people with diabetes are: disease-specific symptoms (e.g. worries about hypoglycaemia and diabetes distress), general symptoms (e.g. fatigue and depression), functional status, general health perceptions and overall quality of life. Generic PROMs such as the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0), or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures could be considered to measure commonly relevant PROs, supplemented with disease-specific PROMs where needed. However, none of the existing diabetes-specific PROM scales has been sufficiently validated, although the Diabetes Symptom Self-Care Inventory (DSSCI) for measuring diabetes-specific symptoms and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) for measuring distress showed sufficient content validity. Standardisation and use of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs can help inform people with diabetes about the expected course of disease and treatment, for shared decision making, to monitor outcomes and to improve healthcare. We recommend further validation studies of diabetes-specific PROMs that have sufficient content validity for measuring disease-specific symptoms and consider generic item banks developed based on item response theory for measuring commonly relevant PROs. Graphical Abstract

PurposeIn current cancer care, there is a growing debate about the value of using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in daily clinical follow-up. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to assess the evidence of the effectiveness of the routine use of PROMs in daily cancer care in terms of patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators and to identify the effect of giving feedback about PROM findings to patients and/or health care professionals (HCPs).MethodsA systematic search was performed. Studies were eligible for inclusion when they (1) used a PROM as an intervention, with or without feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with not using a PROM, and (2) used a PROM as an intervention with feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with using a PROM without giving feedback to patients and/or HCPs.ResultsAfter screening of 8341 references, 22 original studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies found a positive effect on survival, symptoms, HRQoL and patient satisfaction. In general, using feedback to patient and/or HCPs about the PROM results led to better symptom control, HRQoL, patient satisfaction and patient-doctor communication. The majority of included studies had insufficient power to detect significant differences in the outcomes assessed.ConclusionThis review shows that predominantly positive findings were found in the use of a PROM in daily cancer care. Additionally, more positive effects were seen when feedback is provided to patient and/or health care professionals, and it is thus highly recommended that this is always done.

In recent years, there has been an increased focus on placing patients at the center of health care research and evaluating clinical care in order to improve their experience and ensure that research is both robust and of maximum value for the use of medicinal products, therapy, or health services. This paper provides an overview of patients’ involvement in clinical research and service evaluation along with its benefits and limitations. We describe and discuss patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the trends in current research. Both the patient-reported experiences measures (PREMs) and patient and public involvement (PPI) initiative for including patients in the research processes are also outlined. PROs provide reports from patients about their own health, quality of life, or functional status associated with the health care or treatment they have received. PROMs are tools and/or instruments used to report PROs. Patient report experiences through the use of PREMs, such as satisfaction scales, providing insight into the patients’ experience with their care or a health service. There is increasing international attention regarding the use of PREMS as a quality indicator of patient care and safety. This reflects the ongoing health service commitment of involving patients and the public within the wider context of the development and evaluation of health care service delivery and quality improvement.

INTRODUCTION We disclosed amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) results in individuals with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and studied patient experiences and outcomes over a 6‐month period. METHODS Fifty‐seven participants from the Subjective Cognitive Impairment Cohort (SCIENCe) (66 ± 8 years, 21 [37%] F, Mini‐Mental State Examination 29 ± 1, 15 [26%] amyloid positive [A+]) completed questionnaires 1 week prior (T0), 1 day after (T1), and 6 months after amyloid PET disclosure (T2). Questionnaires addressed patient‐reported experiences and outcomes. RESULTS Independent of amyloid status, participants were satisfied with the consultation (scale 1–10; 7.9 ± 1.7) and information provided (scale 1–4; T1: 3.3 ± 0.9, T2: 3.2 ± 0.8). After 6 months, A+ participants reported more information needs (45% vs. 12%, p = 0.02). Independent of amyloid status, decision regret (scale 1–5; A+: 1.5 ± 0.9, A−: 1.4 ± 0.6, p = 0.53) and negative emotions (negative affect, uncertainty, anxiety) were low (all p > 0.15 and Pinteraction > 0.60). DISCUSSION Participants with SCD valued amyloid PET disclosure positively, regardless of amyloid status. The need for information after 6 months, which was stronger in A+ individuals, underscores the importance of follow‐up. Highlights Participants with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) positively valued amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) disclosure. Participants with SCD experienced low levels of decision regret. We did not observe an increase in negative emotions. After 6 months, amyloid‐positive individuals wanted more information.

We define the minimal important change (MIC) as a threshold for a minimal within-person change over time above which patients perceive themselves importantly changed. There is a lot of confusion about the concept of MIC, particularly about the concepts of minimal important change and minimal detectable change, which questions the validity of published MIC values. The aims of this study were: (1) to clarify the concept of MIC and how to use it; (2) to provide practical guidance for estimating methodologically sound MIC values; and (3) to improve the applicability of PROMIS by summarizing the available evidence on plausible PROMIS MIC values. We discuss the concept of MIC and how to use it and provide practical guidance for estimating MIC values. In addition, we performed a systematic review in PubMed on MIC values of any PROMIS measure from studies using recommended approaches. A total of 50 studies estimated the MIC of a PROMIS measure, of which 19 studies used less appropriate methods. MIC values of the remaining 31 studies ranged from 0.1 to 12.7 T-score points. We recommend to use the predictive modeling method, possibly supplemented with the vignette-based method, in future MIC studies. We consider a MIC value of 2–6 T-score points for PROMIS measures reasonable to assume at this point. For surgical interventions a higher MIC value might be appropriate. We recommend more high-quality studies estimating MIC values for PROMIS.

PurposeSystematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important tools to select the most suitable PROM for a study or clinical application. Conducting these reviews is challenging, and the quality of these reviews needs to be improved. We updated the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs, including the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist, and the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties.MethodsAdaptations to the methodology were based on our experience with applying the COSMIN guideline, through discussions among the authors, and results from two related Delphi studies.ResultsThe updated guideline places more emphasis on key aspects that are often missing or sub optimally conducted in published systematic reviews of PROMs, such as formulating a well-defined research question and developing a comprehensive search strategy, assessing risk of bias, applying criteria for good measurement properties, summarizing results, and grading the quality of the evidence. We also stress the importance of evaluating the measurement properties of each subscale of a PROM separately and evaluating content validity of all included PROMs.ConclusionThe quality of systematic reviews of PROMs can be improved by using this updated version of the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. Improved quality will lead to better PROM selection and increased standardization of PROM use.Plain English summaryPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires that measure aspects of health from the patient perspective. To measure a specific health aspect, often dozens of PROMs are available. To choose the best PROM, a systematic review of PROMs can be conducted, in which all information on the quality and feasibility of each available PROM is collected, rated, and compared. Based on such a review a choice for the most suitable PROM for a certain study or clinical application can be made. However, conducting a systematic review of PROMs is very challenging, because nine quality aspects of PROMs need to be taken into account.In this article, we present an updated step-by-step guideline for conducting systematic reviews of PROMs. Each of these steps is described in detail in an accompanying manual. This updated guideline helps researchers to conduct systematic reviews of PROMs in a systematic and transparent way. It also helps readers of systematic reviews to understand how the review was conducted and to check the conclusions about which PROMs are recommended based on their quality.