» Articles » PMID: 33949755

Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs): A Review of Generic and Condition-specific Measures and a Discussion of Trends and Issues

Overview
Journal Health Expect
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Public Health
Date 2021 May 5
PMID 33949755
Citations 170
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires that collect health outcomes directly from the people who experience them. This review critically synthesizes information on generic and selected condition-specific PROMs to describe trends and contemporary issues regarding their development, validation and application.

Methods: We reviewed academic and grey literature on validated PROMs by searching databases, prominent websites, Google Scholar and Google Search. The identification of condition-specific PROMs was limited to common conditions and those with a high burden of disease (eg cancers, cardiovascular disorders). Trends and contemporary issues in the development, validation and application of PROMs were critically evaluated.

Results: The search yielded 315 generic and condition-specific PROMs. The largest numbers of measures were identified for generic PROMs, musculoskeletal conditions and cancers. The earliest published PROMs were in mental health-related conditions. The number of PROMs grew substantially between 1980s and 2000s but slowed more recently. The number of publications discussing PROMs continues to increase. Issues identified include the use of computer-adaptive testing and increasing concerns about the appropriateness of using PROMs developed and validated for specific purposes (eg research) for other reasons (eg clinical decision making).

Conclusions: The term PROM is a relatively new designation for a range of measures that have existed since at least the 1960s. Although literature on PROMs continues to expand, challenges remain in selecting reliable and valid tools that are fit-for-purpose from the many existing instruments.

Patient Or Public Contribution: Consumers were not directly involved in this review; however, its outcome will be used in programmes that engage and partner with consumers.

Citing Articles

New evidence for content validity of the German version of the Acute Cystitis Symptom Score: cognitive interview study among patients and experts.

Nestler S, Apfelbacher C, Ozkan E, Naber K, Piontek K World J Urol. 2025; 43(1):86.

PMID: 40085224 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-05406-2.


Patient-reported outcome measures to deliver patient and family-centered care in pediatrics: the ball is now in our court.

Bele S, Santana M Front Health Serv. 2025; 5:1529731.

PMID: 40041877 PMC: 11876031. DOI: 10.3389/frhs.2025.1529731.


Met and unmet needs of service users with substance use disorders: a latent class analysis.

Chantry M, Fernandez K, Magerman J, Goethals I, De Ruysscher C, Sinclair D Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2025; .

PMID: 40029405 DOI: 10.1007/s00127-025-02861-z.


Can Clinical, Psychological, and Cognitive Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Help to Discriminate Women with Fibromyalgia from Those with Other Localized/Regional Pain Conditions? A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

Cigaran-Mendez M, Tejera-Alonso A, Gomez-Calero C, Fernandez-de-Las-Penas C, Lopez-Redondo M, Valera-Calero J Medicina (Kaunas). 2025; 61(2).

PMID: 40005475 PMC: 11857717. DOI: 10.3390/medicina61020359.


Comprehensive Assessment of Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Hand and Wrist Conditions in Adults: A Scoping Review.

Iskander S, Halbesma G, Hoogbergen M, Young-Afat D, Veldhuizen I JPRAS Open. 2025; 43:475-490.

PMID: 39995575 PMC: 11849562. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpra.2024.12.005.


References
1.
Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H . Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci. 2010; 5:56. PMC: 2914085. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-56. View

2.
Chan G, Bezuidenhout L, Walker L, Rowan R . The Impact on Life questionnaire: validation for elective surgery prioritisation in New Zealand prioritisation criteria in orthopaedic surgery. N Z Med J. 2016; 129(1432):26-32. View

3.
Price A, Smith J, Dakin H, Kang S, Eibich P, Cook J . The Arthroplasty Candidacy Help Engine tool to select candidates for hip and knee replacement surgery: development and economic modelling. Health Technol Assess. 2019; 23(32):1-216. PMC: 6643102. DOI: 10.3310/hta23320. View

4.
Nixon A, Kerr C, Breheny K, Wild D . Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) assessment in epilepsy: a review of epilepsy-specific PROs according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory requirements. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013; 11:38. PMC: 3606363. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-38. View

5.
Terwee C, Mokkink L, Knol D, Ostelo R, Bouter L, de Vet H . Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2011; 21(4):651-7. PMC: 3323819. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1. View