Search

Purpose: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in clinical settings to inform individual patient care. In-depth understanding of end-users' experiences may help identify factors that promote or hinder their use in clinical decision-making. We aimed to examine stakeholder perceptions of the utility of using PROMs in clinical practice based on real-life experience. Methods: Systematic review searching Medline, Embase and PsychINFO from inception to May 2021. Qualitative studies examining patients' and/or clinicians' experiences of using PROMs in clinical settings were included. Study screening and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Qualitative data from included studies was analysed thematically. Results: Of 2388 abstracts retrieved, 52 articles reporting 50 studies met eligibility. Five key benefits were identified: (1) promotes active patient involvement (enables goal setting and discussion of sensitive topics); (2) enhances the focus of consultations (prioritizes patient needs); (3) improves quality of care (enables tailored, holistic care and prompts action); (4) enables standardized monitoring of patient outcomes; and (5) enhances the patient–clinician relationship (provides reassurance). Perceived limitations included the capacity of PROMs to shift the focus of consultations; inaccurately estimate problems; raise unrealistic expectations for care; inhibit patient–clinician interaction; lack clinically meaningful information; and not be suitable for all patients. Conclusion: Both patients and clinicians reported benefits of using PROMs across diverse health conditions and clinical settings, but also highlighted several limitations. These limitations shed some light on why PROM use may not always improve patient outcomes and provide considerations for the design and implementation of future PROM initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Proxy reports are often used when patients are unable to self-report. It is unclear how proxy measures are currently in use in adult health care and research settings. We aimed to describe how proxy reports are used in these settings, including the use of measures developed specifically for proxy reporting in adult health populations. Methods: We systematically searched Medline, PsycINFO, PsycTESTS, CINAHL and EMBASE from database inception to February 2018. Search terms included a combination of terms for quality of life and health outcomes, proxy-reporters, and health condition terms. The data extracted included clinical context, the name of the proxy measure(s) used and other descriptive data. We determined whether the measures were developed specifically for proxy use or were existing measures adapted for proxy use. Results: The database search identified 17,677 possible articles, from which 14,098 abstracts were reviewed. Of these, 11,763 were excluded and 2335 articles were reviewed in full, with 880 included for data extraction. The most common clinical settings were dementia (30%), geriatrics (15%) and cancer (13%). A majority of articles (51%) were paired studies with proxy and patient responses for the same person on the same measure. Most paired studies (77%) were concordance studies comparing patient and proxy responses on these measures. Discussion: Most published research using proxies has focused on proxy-patient concordance. Relatively few measures used in research with proxies were specifically developed for proxy use. Future work is needed to examine the performance of measures specifically developed for proxies. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO No. CRD42018103179 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is a chronic condition requiring repeated treatment and endoscopic examinations that can occur life-long. In this context, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important considerations to patients and managing clinicians. We undertook a systematic review to synthesise PRO results relevant to NMIBC treatment to explore trajectories overtime and differences between treatment options. Methods: We searched databases AMED, MEDLINE, EMbase, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge and Scopus (inception to 5th December 2019), reference lists and contacted key authors to identify studies that reported PROs after NMIBC treatment. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and quality criteria and extracted findings. Results for PROs were synthesised for treatment groups across three time periods: acute/during induction therapy; during maintenance therapy; and long-term follow-up (> 1 year). Results: Of 3193 papers screened, 29 were eligible. These provided evidence about induction treatment effects, but few reported maintenance or long-term evidence, and evidence about differences between NMIBC treatment options was lacking. A range of symptoms (pain in bladder area, urinary frequency and urgency, pain or burning during urination) were commonly experienced during and soon after treatment for NMIBC. Less common symptoms included fatigue, disrupted sleep and gastrointestinal problems. Conclusions: Treatments for NMIBC can cause symptoms and functional impairment during the acute treatment phase and reduce quality of life. Clinicians should be aware of these impairments to prepare patients for short-term sequelae and enable those with treatment options to exercise preferences in choosing among them. However, gaps in current evidence limit our understanding of PRO trajectories from diagnosis through to long-term survivorship and treatment effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: It is important to understand the number, types and regions of trials that include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to appreciate how patient experiences have been considered in studies of health and interventions. Twenty-seven percent of trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (2007-2013) included PROs; however, a regional breakdown was not provided and no reviews have been conducted of the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). We aimed to identify trials registered with ANZCTR with PRO endpoints and describe their characteristics.Methods: ANZCTR was systematically searched from inception (2005) to 31 March 2017 for trials with PRO endpoints. Search terms included PRO measures listed in Patient-Reported Outcomes Quality of Life Instrument Database and Grid-Enabled Measures, as well as generic PRO terms (e.g. "quality of life" (QOL)). Trial endpoints were individually coded using an established framework to identify trials with PROs for the analysis.Results: Of 13,666 registered trials, 6168 (45.1%) included a PRO. The proportion of studies including PROs increased between 2006 and 2016 (r = 0.74, p = 0.009). Among the 6168 trials, there were 17,961 individual PRO endpoints, including symptoms/functional outcomes/condition-specific QOL (65.6%), generic QOL (13.2%), patient-reported experiences (9.9%), patient-reported behaviours (7.9%). Mental health was the most common category (99.8% included PROs), followed by physical medicine/rehabilitation (65.6%), musculoskeletal (63.5%), public health (63.1%), and cancer (54.2%).Discussion: Our findings suggest growing use of PROs in the assessment of health and interventions in ANZ. Our review identifies trial categories with limited patient-reported information and provides a basis for future work on the impact of PRO findings in clinical care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the original publication of the article, the sentence "The ANZCTR is the fifth largest trial registry internationally, with 21,330 registered trials as at January 2018 [5]" in the Introduction section was published incorrectly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]