The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature.
Objective: The purpose of this paper is to summarize the best evidence regarding the impact of providing patient-reported outcomes (PRO) information to health care professionals in daily clinical practice.Methods: Systematic review of randomized clinical trials (Medline, Cochrane Library; reference...
| Publicado en: | Quality of Life Research Vol. 17; no. 2; pp. 179 - 194 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Formato: | research review Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Mar2008
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=105685124&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 105685124 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 09629343 GPQ jtl: Quality of Life Research issn: 09629343 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Mar2008 vid: 17 iid: 2 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature place: New York, New York artinfo: ui: 105685124 105685124 NLM18175207 2010079692 10.1007/s11136-007-9295-0 NLM18175207 105685124 ppf: 179 ppct: 15 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P tig: atl: The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature. aug: au: Valderas JM Kotzeva A Espallargues M Guyatt G Ferrans CE Halyard MY Revicki DA Symonds T Parada A Alonso J Valderas, J M Kotzeva, A Espallargues, M Guyatt, G Ferrans, C E Halyard, M Y Revicki, D A Symonds, T Parada, A Alonso, J affil: National Primary Care Research and Development Center, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK sug: subj: Patient Satisfaction Quality of Life Clinical Trials Feedback Health Status Indicators ab: Objective: The purpose of this paper is to summarize the best evidence regarding the impact of providing patient-reported outcomes (PRO) information to health care professionals in daily clinical practice.Methods: Systematic review of randomized clinical trials (Medline, Cochrane Library; reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and requests to authors and experts in the field).Results: Out of 1,861 identified references published between 1978 and 2007, 34 articles corresponding to 28 original studies proved eligible. Most trials (19) were conducted in primary care settings performed in the USA (21) and assessed adult patients (25). Information provided to professionals included generic health status (10), mental health (14), and other (6). Most studies suffered from methodologic limitations, including analysis that did not correspond with the unit of allocation. In most trials, the impact of PRO was limited. Fifteen of 23 studies (65%) measuring process of care observed at least one significant result favoring the intervention, as did eight of 17 (47%) that measured outcomes of care.Conclusions: Methodological concerns limit the strength of inference regarding the impact of providing PRO information to clinicians. Results suggest great heterogeneity of impact; contexts and interventions that will yield important benefits remain to be clearly defined. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: research review Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|