» Articles » PMID: 25982327

How to Routinely Collect Data on Patient-reported Outcome and Experience Measures in Renal Registries in Europe: an Expert Consensus Meeting

Abstract

Despite the potential for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and experience measures (PREMs) to enhance understanding of patient experiences and outcomes they have not, to date, been widely incorporated into renal registry datasets. This report summarizes the main points learned from an ERA-EDTA QUEST-funded consensus meeting on how to routinely collect PROMs and PREMs in renal registries in Europe. In preparation for the meeting, we surveyed all European renal registries to establish current or planned efforts to collect PROMs/PREMs. A systematic review of the literature was performed. Publications reporting barriers and/or facilitators to PROMs/PREMs collection by registries were identified and a narrative synthesis undertaken. A group of renal registry representatives, PROMs/PREMs experts and patient representatives then met to (i) share any experience renal registries in Europe have in this area; (ii) establish how patient-reported data might be collected by understanding how registries currently collect routine data and how patient-reported data is collected in other settings; (iii) harmonize the future collection of patient-reported data by renal registries in Europe by agreeing upon preferred instruments and (iv) to identify the barriers to routine collection of patient-reported data in renal registries in Europe. In total, 23 of the 45 European renal registries responded to the survey. Two reported experience in collecting PROMs and three stated that they were actively exploring ways to do so. The systematic review identified 157 potentially relevant articles of which 9 met the inclusion criteria and were analysed for barriers and facilitators to routine PROM/PREM collection. Thirteen themes were identified and mapped to a three-stage framework around establishing the need, setting up and maintaining the routine collection of PROMs/PREMs. At the consensus meeting some PROMs instruments were agreed for routine renal registry collection (the generic SF-12, the disease-specific KDQOL™-36 and EQ-5D-5L to be able to derive quality-adjusted life years), but further work was felt to be needed before recommending PREMs. Routinely collecting PROMs and PREMs in renal registries is important if we are to better understand what matters to patients but it is likely to be challenging; close international collaboration will be beneficial.

Citing Articles

Shared medication coordination in a social psychiatric residence: adaptation to meet local requirements.

Axelsen T, Sorensen C, Lindelof A, Ludvigsen M BMC Psychiatry. 2025; 25(1):209.

PMID: 40050864 PMC: 11887218. DOI: 10.1186/s12888-025-06653-2.


Chronic kidney disease-associated pruritus: a comparison of instruments and associations with patient-reported outcomes using an electronic patient-reported outcome survey in Europe.

Guedes M, Tu C, Sukul N, Asgari E, Guebre-Egziabher F, Ruessmann D Clin Kidney J. 2024; 17(10):sfae276.

PMID: 39669400 PMC: 11635370. DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfae276.


Health service provider views on measuring patient involvement in healthcare: an interview study with researchers, clinicians, service managers, and policymakers.

Skovsby Toft B, Ellegaard T, Nielsen B, Rossen C, Horluck J, Ludvigsen M BMC Health Serv Res. 2024; 24(1):1417.

PMID: 39548481 PMC: 11568535. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-024-11904-1.


A Systematic Literature Review to Identify Patient Registries in Portugal.

Pedrosa H, Pereira F, Carrilho M, Martins C, Martins R, Cruz P Port J Public Health. 2024; 41(2):132-139.

PMID: 39469655 PMC: 11327498. DOI: 10.1159/000531447.


A shared decision-making intervention for individuals living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who are considering the menu of pulmonary rehabilitation treatment options; a feasibility study.

Barradell A, Doe G, Bekker H, Houchen-Wolloff L, Robertson N, Singh S Chron Respir Dis. 2024; 21:14799731241238428.

PMID: 39254860 PMC: 11402089. DOI: 10.1177/14799731241238428.


References
1.
Sepucha K, Borkhoff C, Lally J, Levin C, Matlock D, Jenn Ng C . Establishing the effectiveness of patient decision aids: key constructs and measurement instruments. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014; 13 Suppl 2:S12. PMC: 4044563. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S12. View

2.
Thong M, Mols F, Stein K, Smith T, Coebergh J, van de Poll-Franse L . Population-based cancer registries for quality-of-life research: a work-in-progress resource for survivorship studies?. Cancer. 2013; 119 Suppl 11:2109-23. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28056. View

3.
Stacey D, Legare F, Pouliot S, Kryworuchko J, Dunn S . Shared decision making models to inform an interprofessional perspective on decision making: a theory analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2009; 80(2):164-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.10.015. View

4.
Kasper J, Heesen C, Kopke S, Fulcher G, Geiger F . Patients' and observers' perceptions of involvement differ. Validation study on inter-relating measures for shared decision making. PLoS One. 2011; 6(10):e26255. PMC: 3197148. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026255. View

5.
Etkind S, Daveson B, Kwok W, Witt J, Bausewein C, Higginson I . Capture, transfer, and feedback of patient-centered outcomes data in palliative care populations: does it make a difference? A systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2014; 49(3):611-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.07.010. View