» Articles » PMID: 28886742

Patient Involvement in the Development of Patient-reported Outcome Measures: The Developers' Perspective

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Health Services
Date 2017 Sep 10
PMID 28886742
Citations 23
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in health care. To capture the patient's perspective, patient involvement in PROM development is needed. As earlier research showed varying degrees of patient involvement in PROM development, this study aimed to investigate why PROM developers do or do not involve patients, how patients can be successfully involved and what the negative aspects and benefits of patient involvement are.

Methods: PROM developers who, according to an earlier scoping review, involved patients in at least two phases of PROM development or did not involve patients at all, were contacted for a telephone interview. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using a general inductive approach.

Results: From the PROM developers who involved patients, 21 developers were interviewed and three answered questions via e-mail. Most developers considered patient involvement necessary to create a valid questionnaire and relied on guidelines, personal experience and practical considerations for choosing a qualitative method. Negative aspects of patient involvement were mainly time investment and budget impact. One developer who did not involve patients was interviewed. Two developers sent back answers via e-mail. These developers did not involve patients because of limited resources or because no benefits were expected.

Conclusion: Although PROM developers agree that patient involvement is necessary, a lack of resources can be a stumbling block. Most developers rely on guidelines, personal experience or practical considerations for choosing a qualitative method. Although this may be a good place to start, to optimize patient involvement developers should explicitly think about which methods would suit their study.

Citing Articles

The "most bothersome symptom" construct: A qualitative study of Australians living with endometriosis.

Mitchell A, Rajapakse D, Peate M, Chalmers K, Kamper S, Frawley H Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2024; 103(8):1625-1633.

PMID: 38751074 PMC: 11266636. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14876.


Exploring patient reported quality of life in lung cancer patients: A qualitative study of patient-reported outcome measures.

Jensen-Marini E, Ayton D, Zalcberg J, Stirling R Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2024; 21(2):163-173.

PMID: 38520667 PMC: 11880980. DOI: 10.1111/ajco.14056.


Rasch analysis of a patient-reported outcome measure for self-perceived health among psychiatric patients in Denmark.

Valentin J, Mainz J, Johnsen S, Kristensen K, Kristensen S BMJ Open Qual. 2024; 13(1).

PMID: 38350672 PMC: 10862286. DOI: 10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002519.


Quality of patient-reported outcome measures for primary dysmenorrhea: a systematic review.

Piontek K, Gabes M, Kann G, Fechtner M, Apfelbacher C Qual Life Res. 2023; 33(1):31-43.

PMID: 37902914 PMC: 10784326. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-023-03517-8.


Using Patient Blogs on Social Media to Assess the Content Validity of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Qualitative Analysis of Patient-Written Blogs.

Delnoij D, Derks M, Koolen L, Shekary S, Suitela J JMIR Form Res. 2023; 7:e43210.

PMID: 37505797 PMC: 10422175. DOI: 10.2196/43210.


References
1.
Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N . Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000; 320(7227):114-6. PMC: 1117368. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114. View

2.
Fossey E, Harvey C . A conceptual review of functioning: implications for the development of consumer outcome measures. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2001; 35(1):91-8. DOI: 10.1046/j.1440-1614.2001.00846.x. View

3.
Kramish Campbell M, Meier A, Carr C, Enga Z, James A, Reedy J . Health behavior changes after colon cancer: a comparison of findings from face-to-face and on-line focus groups. Fam Community Health. 2001; 24(3):88-103. DOI: 10.1097/00003727-200110000-00010. View

4.
Eysenbach G, Till J . Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. BMJ. 2001; 323(7321):1103-5. PMC: 59687. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103. View

5.
Hibbard J, Stockard J, Tusler M . Does publicizing hospital performance stimulate quality improvement efforts?. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003; 22(2):84-94. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.22.2.84. View