» Articles » PMID: 34871423

Examining Perspectives on the Adoption and Use of Computer-based Patient-reported Outcomes Among Clinicians and Health Professionals: a Q Methodology Study

Overview
Date 2021 Dec 6
PMID 34871423
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To determine factors that influence the adoption and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the electronic health record (EHR) among users.

Materials And Methods: Q methodology, supported by focus groups, semistructured interviews, and a review of the literature was used for data collection about opinions on PROs in the EHR. An iterative thematic analysis resulted in 49 statements that study participants sorted, from most unimportant to most important, under the following condition of instruction: "What issues are most important or most unimportant to you when you think about the adoption and use of patient-reported outcomes within the electronic health record in routine clinical care?" Using purposive sampling, 50 participants were recruited to rank and sort the 49 statements online, using HTMLQ software. Principal component analysis and Varimax rotation were used for data analysis using the PQMethod software.

Results: Participants were mostly physicians (24%) or physician/researchers (20%). Eight factors were identified. Factors included the ability of PROs in the EHR to enable: efficient and reliable use; care process improvement and accountability; effective and better symptom assessment; patient involvement for care quality; actionable and practical clinical decisions; graphical review and interpretation of results; use for holistic care planning to reflect patients' needs; and seamless use for all users.

Discussion: The success of PROs in the EHR in clinical settings is not dependent on a "one size fits all" strategy, demonstrated by the diversity of viewpoints identified in this study. A sociotechnical approach for implementing PROs in the EHR may help improve its success and sustainability.

Conclusions: PROs in the EHR are most important to users when the technology is used to improve patient outcomes. Future research must focus on the impact of embedding this EHR functionality on care processes.

Citing Articles

Transitioning Perspectives in Digital Health Through Phenomenology Integration.

Fiordelli M J Med Internet Res. 2024; 26:e62691.

PMID: 39442170 PMC: 11541144. DOI: 10.2196/62691.


Barriers to and enablers of the use of the Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam in clinical practice-a qualitative post-implementation study.

Kraak J, Verhoef K, Kramer S, Merkus P J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2024; 8(1):96.

PMID: 39141062 PMC: 11324631. DOI: 10.1186/s41687-024-00741-9.


Seamless Integration of Computer-Adaptive Patient Reported Outcomes into an Electronic Health Record.

Nolla K, Rasmussen L, Rothrock N, Butt Z, Bass M, Davis K Appl Clin Inform. 2023; 15(1):145-154.

PMID: 38154472 PMC: 10881259. DOI: 10.1055/a-2235-9557.


Monitoring and responding to signals of suicidal ideation in pragmatic clinical trials: Lessons from the GRACE trial for Chronic Sickle Cell Disease Pain.

Swirsky E, Boyd A, Gu C, Burke L, Doorenbos A, Ezenwa M Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2023; 36:101218.

PMID: 37842321 PMC: 10569945. DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2023.101218.


Facilitators and barriers to implementing electronic patient-reported outcome and experience measures in a health care setting: a systematic review.

Glenwright B, Simmich J, Cottrell M, OLeary S, Sullivan C, Pole J J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2023; 7(1):13.

PMID: 36786914 PMC: 9928985. DOI: 10.1186/s41687-023-00554-2.

References
1.
Zhang R, Burgess E, Reddy M, Rothrock N, Bhatt S, Rasmussen L . Provider perspectives on the integration of patient-reported outcomes in an electronic health record. JAMIA Open. 2019; 2(1):73-80. PMC: 6447042. DOI: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooz001. View

2.
Churruca K, Ludlow K, Wu W, Gibbons K, Nguyen H, Ellis L . A scoping review of Q-methodology in healthcare research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021; 21(1):125. PMC: 8215808. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-021-01309-7. View

3.
Stehlik J, Rodriguez-Correa C, Spertus J, Biber J, Nativi-Nicolau J, Zickmund S . Implementation of Real-Time Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Heart Failure Clinic: A Feasibility Study. J Card Fail. 2017; 23(11):813-816. DOI: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2017.09.009. View

4.
Qurtas D, Shabila N . Using Q-methodology to understand the perspectives and practical experiences of dermatologists about treatment difficulties of cutaneous leishmaniasis. BMC Infect Dis. 2020; 20(1):645. PMC: 7466828. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-020-05365-0. View

5.
Amin Z . Q methodology--a journey into the subjectivity of human mind. Singapore Med J. 2001; 41(8):410-4. View