Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background: Despite the development of patient-centred or patient-reported outcome measures (PCOMs or PROMs) in palliative and end-of-life care over recent years, their routine use in practice faces continuing challenges. Objective: To update a highly cited literature review, identify and synthesise new evidence on facilitators, barriers, lessons learned, PCOMs used, models of implementation, implementation outcomes, costs, and consequences of implementing PCOMs in palliative care clinical practice. Methods: We will search MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Emcare, SCI-Expanded, SSCI, ESCI, and BNI. The database search will be supplemented by a list of studies from the expert advisory committee, hand-searching of reference lists for included articles, and citations of the original review. We will include primary studies using a PCOM during clinical care of adult patients with advanced disease in palliative care settings and extract data on reported models of implementation, PCOMs, facilitators, barriers, lessons learned, costs, and implementation outcomes. Gough's Weight of Evidence Framework will be used to assess the robustness and relevance of the studies. We will narratively synthesise and tabulate the findings. This review will follow PRISMA, PRISMA-Abstract, PRISMA-P, and PRISMA-Search as the reporting guidelines. Source of funding: Marie Curie. The funder is not involved in designing or conducting this study. Protocol registration: CRD42023398653 (13/02/2023)

Ataxia management is mainly based on rehabilitation, symptomatic management, and functional improvement. Therefore, it is important to comprehensively assess ataxic symptoms and their impact on function. Recently, the movement disorders society recommended four generic ataxia rating scales: scale for assessment and rating of ataxia (SARA), international cooperative ataxia rating scales, Friedreich’s ataxia rating scale (FARS), and unified multiple system atrophy rating scale (UMSARS). The aim of the study was to analyze and compare the content of the recommended ataxia rating scales by linking them to the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). A total of 125 meaningful concepts from 93 items of the four included scales were linked to 57 different ICF categories. The ICF categories were distributed in body structure (n = 8), body function (n = 26), activity and participation (n = 20), and environmental factors (n = 3) components. UMSARS and FARS were the only ones that have addressed the body structure or environmental factors component. The content analysis of ataxia rating scales would help clinicians and researchers select the most appropriate scale and understand ataxic symptoms and their impact on function. It seems that SARA is the optimal scale for rapid assessment of ataxia or in busy clinical settings. UMSARS or FARS are more appropriate for the investigating the impact of ataxia on overall health, and monitoring ataxia progression and disability.

Background Allied Health Professionals today are required, more than ever before, to demonstrate their impact. However, despite at least 20 years of expectation, many services fail to deliver routine outcome measurement in practice. This systematic review investigates what helps and hinders routine outcome measurement of allied health professionals practice. Methods A systematic review protocol was developed comprising: a defined search strategy for PsycINFO, MEDLINE and CINHAL databases and inclusion criteria and systematic procedures for data extraction and quality appraisal. Studies were included if they were published in English and investigated facilitators and/or barriers to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals. No restrictions were placed on publication type, design, country, or year of publication. Reference lists of included publications were searched to identify additional papers. Descriptive methods were used to synthesise the findings. Results 960 papers were retrieved; 15 met the inclusion criteria. Professional groups represented were Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy, and Speech and Language Therapy. The included literature varied in quality and design. Facilitators and barriers to routine outcome measurement exist at individual, managerial and organisational levels. Key factors affecting professionals’ use of routine outcome measurement include: professionals’ level of knowledge and confidence about using outcome measures, and the degree of organisational and peer-support professionals received with a view to promoting their work in practice. Conclusions Whilst the importance of routinely measuring outcomes within the allied health professions is well recognised, it has largely failed to be delivered in practice. Factors that influence clinicians’ ability and desire to undertake routine outcome measurement are bi-directional: they can act as either facilitators or barriers. Routine outcome measurement may only be deliverable if appropriate action is taken at individual therapist, team, and organisational levels of an organisation.

Heterogeneity in what and how outcomes are measured in childhood obesity prevention trials limits evidence synthesis and evaluation of intervention effectiveness. Core Outcome Sets (COS) and Core Outcome Measurement Sets (COMS) can standardize measurement and reporting across trials, but only if they are used by trialists. This study examined trialists’ awareness and attitudes toward two childhood obesity–related COS and factors influencing their use; characteristics of Outcome Measurement Instruments (OMIs) used in childhood obesity prevention trials; and how trialists choose these OMIs. An online, international, cross-sectional survey was conducted including trialists engaged in designing and/or conducting childhood obesity prevention trials in children aged 0–5 years. Trialists were recruited via peer-reviewed publications, the Transforming Obesity Prevention for CHILDren Collaboration and professional contacts. The survey examined trialist characteristics, awareness, and use of existing COS, OMI characteristics, and factors influencing trialist selection of OMIs. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively; qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis. The majority of the 46 trialists who completed the survey were senior-career researchers (61%; n = 28), with 1 to 38 years' experience in childhood obesity prevention trials. Seventy percent (n = 32) were familiar with COS in general; 84% (n = 26) of these were familiar with one or both childhood obesity–related COS. These trialists' COS use was limited by perceived participant burden, cost, and lack of knowledge; availability of guidelines, and resources facilitated COS use. Trialists favored measuring outcomes using existing (83%; n = 38) and adapted (80%; n = 37) questionnaires, and anthropometric measures (80%; n = 37). Quantitative and qualitative data indicated that measurement properties (eg, reliability, validity), cost, perceived burden, ease of use, and feasibility were the most important factors influencing trialists’ OMI choice. Trialists’ awareness and use of childhood obesity–related COS is positive, and may be enhanced through provision of guidance and resources to support COS and COMS use. Development of COMS should consider trialist-reported factors related to feasibility and measurement properties. Such considerations can enhance COS and COMS use in trials, reducing outcome heterogeneity, and improving evaluation of intervention effectiveness to prevent childhood obesity. •Most trialists are familiar with COS and two childhood obesity–related COS.•Burden, cost, and poor knowledge were barriers to COS use.•Available guidelines and relevant/comprehensive COS were facilitators of COS use.•Reliability, cost, and time to complete influence measurement instrument choice.

Background: Despite the development of patient-centred or patient-reported outcome measures (PCOMs or PROMs) in palliative and end-of-life care over recent years, their routine use in practice faces continuing challenges. Objective: To update a highly cited literature review, identify and synthesise new evidence on facilitators, barriers, lessons learned, PCOMs used, models of implementation, implementation outcomes, costs, and consequences of implementing PCOMs in palliative care clinical practice. Methods: We will search MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Emcare, SCI-Expanded, SSCI, ESCI, and BNI. The database search will be supplemented by a list of studies from the expert advisory committee, hand-searching of reference lists for included articles, and citations of the original review. We will include primary studies using a PCOM during clinical care of adult patients with advanced disease in palliative care settings and extract data on reported models of implementation, PCOMs, facilitators, barriers, lessons learned, costs, and implementation outcomes. Gough's Weight of Evidence Framework will be used to assess the robustness and relevance of the studies. We will narratively synthesise and tabulate the findings. This review will follow PRISMA, PRISMA-Abstract, PRISMA-P, and PRISMA-Search as the reporting guidelines. Source of funding: Marie Curie. The funder is not involved in designing or conducting this study. Protocol registration: CRD42023398653 (13/02/2023)

Purpose Current US health policy discussions regarding physician burnout have largely been informed by studies employing the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI); yet, there is little in the literature focused on interpreting MBI scores. We described the burnout symptoms and precision associated with MBI scores in US physicians. Methods Using item response theory (IRT) analyses of secondary, cross-sectional survey data, we created response profiles describing the probability of burnout symptoms associated with US physicians’ MBI emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), and personal accomplishment (PA) subscale scores. Response profiles were mapped to raw subscale scores and used to predict symptom endorsements at mean scores and commonly used cut-points. Results The average US physician was likely to endorse feeling he/she is emotionally drained, used up, frustrated, and working too hard and all PA indicators once weekly or more but was unlikely to endorse feeling any DP symptoms once weekly or more. At the commonly used EE and DP cut-points of 27 and 10, respectively, a physician was unlikely to endorse feeling burned out or any DP symptoms once weekly or more. Each subscale assessed the majority of sample score ranges with ≥ 0.70 reliability. Conclusions We produced a crosswalk mapping raw MBI subscale scores to scaled scores and response profiles calibrated in a US physician sample. Our results can be used to better understand the meaning and precision of MBI scores in US physicians; compare individual/group MBI scores against a reference population of US physicians; and inform the selection of subscale cut-points for defining categorical physician burnout outcomes.

The minimally important difference (MID) refers to the smallest change that is sufficiently meaningful to carry implications for patients' care. MIDs are necessary to guide the interpretation of scores. This study estimated MID for the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI). Study instruments were administered to 414 people who participated in two studies that included treatment with low back pain (LBP; n=218) or depression (n=196). Participants with LBP received epidural steroid injections and participants with depression received antidepressants, psychotherapy, or both. MIDs were estimated for the changes in LBP. MIDs were included only if a priori criteria were met (ie, sample size ≥10, Spearman correlation ≥0.3 between anchor measures and PROMIS-PI scores, and effect size range =0.2-0.8). The interquartile range (IQR) of MID estimates was calculated. The IQR ranged from 3.5 to 5.5 points. The lower bound estimate of the IQR (3.5) was greater than mean of standard error of measurement (SEM) both at time 1 (SEM =2.3) and at time 2 (SEM =2.5), indicating that the estimate of MID exceeded measurement error. Based on our results, researchers and clinicians using PROMIS-PI can assume that change of 3.5 to 5.5 points in comparisons of mean PROMIS-PI scores of people with LBP can be considered meaningful.

Purpose of ReviewThe current panorama of measurement tools for use in cancer rehabilitation is reviewed. For rehabilitation purposes, evaluating function is of the highest priority.Recent FindingsFrom a patient-reported outcome (PRO) standpoint, SF-36 and EORTC-QLQ-C30 are in most common use in cancer rehabilitation research; these are quality of life measures that contain functional subdomains. Newer tools which are based on item response theory and have options for both computer assisted or short form (SF) administration, including the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and Activity Measure for Post-acute Care (AMPAC) instruments, show increasing use, especially PROMIS Physical Function SF, and, recently, PROMIS Cancer Function Brief 3D, which has been validated in the cancer population, with domains of physical function, fatigue, and social participation, to track clinical rehabilitation outcomes. Evaluating objective measures of function in cancer patients is also crucial.SummaryUtilization of clinically feasible tools for cancer rehabilitation, to employ for both screening purposes and for monitoring of rehabilitation treatment efficacy, is an evolving area, much needed to promote further research and improved, consistent clinical care for cancer patients and survivors.

Background Patient-centred outcome measures (PCOMs), when well implemented, are powerful tools facilitating patient, family and clinical communication to better respond to patient needs. Their routine use in palliative care practice still faces challenges. Objective To update a systematic review of PCOMs implementation, reviewing and synthesising new evidence on facilitators, barriers, lessons learned, measures used, models of implementation, costs, implementation outcomes, and consequences in clinical practice. Methods We searched eight information sources supplemented by hand-searching and citations of the original review and studies identified by the expert advisory committee. This prospectively registered review included studies using a PCOM during clinical care of adult patients with advanced disease in all settings and extracted data on: PCOMs used, models of implementation, facilitators, barriers, lessons learned, costs, and implementation outcomes. We employed narrative synthesis and tabulated findings, following all PRISMA reporting guidelines. Results We included 114 studies. A major new facilitator was the integration of electronic/digital PCOMs into Information Technology systems. Main barriers remain largely unchanged and relate to healthcare professionals’ beliefs. Implementation was highlighted as a complex intervention, needing planning, assessment and fine tuning throughout. Sixty-two included studies mentioned at least one implementation outcome. Eighteen models, frameworks and theories were identified in 25 included studies. No studies reported on costs of implementation. Conclusion This work reveals the complexity of implementing PCOMs in palliative care practice. The main clinical and research implications of our findings highlight the central importance of staff engagement and training staff in PCOM tools, communication strategies, and cultural competence.

Background Chronic low back pain is a multidimensional syndrome affecting physical activity and function, health-related quality of life and employment status. The aim of the study was to quantify the cross-sectional and longitudinal validity of single measurement scales in specific construct domains and to examine how they combine to build a comprehensive outcome, covering the complex construct of chronic low back pain before and after a standardized interdisciplinary pain program. Methods This prospective cohort study assessed 177 patients using the Short Form 36 (SF-36), the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI), the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and 2 functional performance tests, the Back Performance Scale (BPS) and the 6-Minute Walking Distance (6MWD). The comprehensiveness and overlap of the constructs used were quantified cross-sectionally and longitudinally by bivariate correlations, exploratory factor analysis, and effect sizes. Results The mean age of the participants was 48.0 years (+/− 12.7); 59.3% were female. Correlations of baseline scores ranged from r = − 0.01 (BPS with MPI Life control) to r = 0.76 (SF-36 Mental health with MPI Negative mood). SF-36 Physical functioning correlated highest with the functional performance tests (r = 0.58 BPS, 0.67 6MWD) and ODI (0.56). Correlations of change scores (difference of follow-up – baseline score) were consistent but weaker. Factor analysis revealed 2 factors: “psychosocial” and “pain & function” (totally explained variance 44.0–60.9%). Psychosocial factors loaded strongest (up to 0.89 SCL-90-R) on the first factor, covering 2/3 of the explained variance. Pain and function (ing) loaded more strongly on the second factor (up to 0.81 SF-36 Physical functioning at follow-up). All scales showed improvements, with effect sizes ranging from 0.16–0.67. Conclusions Our results confirm previous findings that the chronic low back pain syndrome is highly multifactorial and comprises many more dimensions of health and quality of life than merely back-related functioning. A comprehensive outcome measurement should include the predominant psychosocial domain and a broad spectrum of measurement constructs in order to assess the full complexity of the chronic low back syndrome. Convergence and divergence of the scales capture the overlapping contents and nuances within the constructs.