Patient-centered care in Coronary Heart Disease: what do you want to measure? A systematic review of reviews on patient-reported outcome measures

Abstract

Abstract Background The number of published articles on Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) in Coronary Heart Disease (CHD), a leading cause of disability-adjusted life years lost worldwide, has been growing in the last decades. The aim of this study was to identify all the disease-specific PROMs developed for or used in CHD and summarize their characteristics (regardless of the construct), to facilitate the selection of the most adequate one for each purpose. Methods A systematic review of reviews was conducted in MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. PROQOLID and BiblioPRO libraries were also checked. PROMs were classified by construct and information was extracted from different sources regarding their main characteristics such as aim, number of items, specific dimensions, original language, and metric properties that have been assessed. Results After title and abstract screening of 1224 articles, 114 publications were included for full text review. Finally, we identified 56 PROMs: 12 symptoms scales, 3 measuring functional status, 21 measuring Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL), and 20 focused on other constructs. Three of the symptoms scales were specifically designed for a study (no metric properties evaluated), and only five have been included in a published study in the last decade. Regarding functional status, reliability and validity have been assessed for Duke Activity Index and Seattle Angina Questionnaire, which present multiple language versions. For HRQL, most of the PROMs included physical, emotional, and social domains. Responsiveness has only been evaluated for 10 out the 21 HRQL PROMs identified. Other constructs included psychological aspects, self-efficacy, attitudes, perceptions, threats and expectations about the treatment, knowledge, adjustment, or limitation for work, social support, or self-care. Conclusions There is a wide variety of instruments to assess the patients’ perspective in CHD, covering several constructs. This is the first systematic review of specific PROMs for CHD including all constructs. It has practical significance, as it summarizes relevant information that may help clinicians, researchers, and other healthcare stakeholders to choose the most adequate instrument for promoting shared decision making in a trend towards value-based healthcare.