Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings
-
Published:2020-07-10
Issue:11
Volume:30
Page:3015-3033
-
ISSN:0962-9343
-
Container-title:Quality of Life Research
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Qual Life Res
Author:
Stover Angela M.ORCID, Haverman Lotte, van Oers Hedy A., Greenhalgh Joanne, Potter Caroline M., Ahmed Sara, Greenhalgh Joanne, Gibbons Elizabeth, Haverman Lotte, Manalili Kimberly, Potter Caroline, Roberts Natasha, Santana Maria, Stover Angela M., van Oers Hedy,
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
Patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs/PREMs) are well established in research for many health conditions, but barriers persist for implementing them in routine care. Implementation science (IS) offers a potential way forward, but its application has been limited for PROMs/PREMs.
Methods
We compare similarities and differences for widely used IS frameworks and their applicability for implementing PROMs/PREMs through case studies. Three case studies implemented PROMs: (1) pain clinics in Canada; (2) oncology clinics in Australia; and (3) pediatric/adult clinics for chronic conditions in the Netherlands. The fourth case study is planning PREMs implementation in Canadian primary care clinics. We compare case studies on barriers, enablers, implementation strategies, and evaluation.
Results
Case studies used IS frameworks to systematize barriers, to develop implementation strategies for clinics, and to evaluate implementation effectiveness. Across case studies, consistent PROM/PREM implementation barriers were technology, uncertainty about how or why to use PROMs/PREMs, and competing demands from established clinical workflows. Enabling factors in clinics were context specific. Implementation support strategies changed during pre-implementation, implementation, and post-implementation stages. Evaluation approaches were inconsistent across case studies, and thus, we present example evaluation metrics specific to PROMs/PREMs.
Conclusion
Multilevel IS frameworks are necessary for PROM/PREM implementation given the complexity. In cross-study comparisons, barriers to PROM/PREM implementation were consistent across patient populations and care settings, but enablers were context specific, suggesting the need for tailored implementation strategies based on clinic resources. Theoretically guided studies are needed to clarify how, why, and in what circumstances IS principles lead to successful PROM/PREM integration and sustainability.
Funder
National Cancer Institute National Institute for Health Research Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference72 articles.
1. Kotronoulas, G., Kearney, N., Maguire, R., Harrow, A., Di Domenico, D., Croy, S., et al. (2014). What is the value of the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 32(14), 1480–1501. 2. Boyce, M. B., & Browne, J. P. (2013). Does providing feedback on patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals result in better outcomes for patients? A systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 22(9), 2265–2278. 3. Food, U. S., & Administration, D. (2019). Patient-focused drug development: Methods to identify what is important to patients: Draft guidance for industry, food and drug administration staff, and other stakeholders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 4. Kingsley, C., & Patel, S. (2017). Patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures. British Journal of Anaesthesia Education, 17(4), 137–144. 5. Yang, L. Y., Manhas, D. S., Howard, A. F., & Olson, R. A. (2018). Patient-reported outcome use in oncology: A systematic review of the impact on patient-clinician communication. Supportive Care in Cancer, 26(1), 41–60.
Cited by
163 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|