Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Protocol

Barriers and enablers to the implementation of patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs/PREMs): protocol for an umbrella review

Authors: Guillaume Fontaine, Marie-Eve Poitras, Maxime Sasseville, Marie-Pascale Pomey, Jérôme Ouellet, Lydia Ould Brahim, Sydney Wasserman, Frédéric Bergeron, Sylvie D. Lambert

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2024

Abstract

Background

Patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs, respectively) are evidence-based, standardized questionnaires that can be used to capture patients’ perspectives of their health and health care. While substantial investments have been made in the implementation of PROMs and PREMs, their use remains fragmented and limited in many settings. Analysis of multi-level barriers and enablers to the implementation of PROMs and PREMs has been hampered by the lack of use of state-of-the-art implementation science frameworks. This umbrella review aims to consolidate available evidence from existing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods systematic and scoping reviews covering factors that influence the implementation of PROMs and PREMs in healthcare settings.

Methods

An umbrella review of systematic and scoping reviews will be conducted following the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods reviews of studies focusing on the implementation of PROMs and/or PREMs in all healthcare settings will be considered for inclusion. Eight bibliographical databases will be searched. All review steps will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Included reviews will be appraised and data will be extracted in four steps: (1) assessing the methodological quality of reviews using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist; (2) extracting data from included reviews; (3) theory-based coding of barriers and enablers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 2.0; and (4) identifying the barriers and enablers best supported by reviews using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach. Findings will be presented in diagrammatic and tabular forms in a manner that aligns with the objective and scope of this umbrella review, along with a narrative summary.

Discussion

This umbrella review of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods systematic and scoping reviews will inform policymakers, researchers, managers, and clinicians regarding which factors hamper or enable the adoption and sustained use of PROMs and PREMs in healthcare settings, and the level of confidence in the evidence supporting these factors. Findings will orient the selection and adaptation of implementation strategies tailored to the factors identified.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42023421845.

Available only for authorised users

Kingsley C, Patel S. Patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures. BJA Education. 2017;16:137–44.CrossRef

Jamieson Gilmore K CI, Coletta L, Allin S. The uses of patient reported experience measures in health systems: a systematic narrative review. Health Policy. 2022.

Gibbons CPI, Gonçalves-Bradley DC, et al. Routine provision of feedback from patientreported outcome measurements to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;10:Cd011589.PubMed

Howell DMS, Wilkinson K, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer clinical practice: a scoping review of use, impact on health outcomes, and implementation factors. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:1846–58.CrossRefPubMed

Kotronoulas GKN, Maguire R, et al. What is the value of the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1480–501.CrossRefPubMed

Chen J OL, Hollis SJ. A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(211).

Basch E. Symptom monitoring With patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: A randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:2198–2198.CrossRef

Forcino RCMM, Engel JA, O’Malley AJ, Elwyn G. Routine patient-reported experience measurement of shared decision-making in the USA: a qualitative study of the current state according to frontrunners. BMJ Open. 2020;10: e037087.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Timmins N. NHS goes to the PROMS. BMJ. 2008;336:1464–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Mjåset C. Value-based health care in four different health care systems. NEJM Catalyst. 2020.

11.

Sekretariatet P. PRO – patient reported outcome. https://pro-danmark.dk/da/proenglish.

12.

Terner MLK, Chow C, Webster G. Advancing PROMs for health system use in Canada and beyond. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021;5:94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Slawomirski L, van den Berg M, Karmakar-Hore S. Patient-Reported indicator survey (Paris): aligning practice and policy for better health outcomes. World Med J. 2018;64(3):8–14.

14.

Ahmed SBL, Bartlett SJ, et al. A catalyst for transforming health systems and person-centred care: Canadian national position statement on patient-reported outcomes. Curr Oncol. 2020;27:90–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Pross C, Geissler A, Busse R. Measuring, reporting, and rewarding quality of care in 5 nations: 5 policy levers to enhance hospital quality accountability. Milbank Q. 2017;95(1):136–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Ernst SCK, Steinbeck V, Busse R, Pross C. Toward system-wide implementation of patient-reported outcome measures: a framework for countries, states, and regions. Value in Health. 2022;25(9):1539–47.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Nguyen HBP, Dhillon H, Sundaresan P. A review of the barriers to using Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in routine cancer care. J Med Radiation Sci. 2021;68:186–95.CrossRef

18.

Davis SAM, Smith M, et al. Paving the way for electronic patient-centered measurement in team-based primary care: integrated knowledge translation approach. JMIR Form Res. 2022;6: e33584.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Bull CTH, Watson D, Callander EJ. Selecting and implementing patient-reported outcome and experience measures to assess health system performance. JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3: e220326.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Schepers SAHL, Zadeh S, Grootenhuis MA, Wiener L. Healthcare professionals’ preferences and perceived barriers for routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes in pediatric oncology practice: moving toward international processes of change. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2016;63:2181–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Glenwright BG, Simmich J, Cottrell Mea. Facilitators and barriers to implementing electronic patient-reported outcome and experience measures in a health care setting: a systematic review. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2023;7(13). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-023-00554-2

22.

Foster A, Croot L, Brazier J, Harris J, O’Cathain A. The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: a systematic review of reviews. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018;2(1):1–16.CrossRef

23.

Wolff AC, Dresselhuis A, Hejazi Sea. Healthcare provider characteristics that influence the implementation of individual-level patient-centered outcome measure (PROM) and patient-reported experience measure (PREM) data across practice settings: a protocol for a mixed methods systematic review with a narrative synthesis. Syst Rev. 2021;10(169). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01725-2

24.

Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

French SD, Green SE, O’Connor DA, et al. Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: a systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):38. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Wolfenden L, Foy R, Presseau J, Grimshaw J M, Ivers N M, al. PBJe. Designing and undertaking randomised implementation trials: guide for researchers. BMJ. 2021;372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3721

27.

Damschroder LJ, Reardon, C.M., Widerquist, M.A.O. et al. ,. The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implementation Science. 2022;17:75.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0

28.

Bradshaw ASM, Mulderrig M, et al. Implementing person-centred outcome measures in palliative care: An exploratory qualitative study using Normalisation Process Theory to understand processes and context. Palliat Med. 2021;35:397–407.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Stover AMHL, van Oers HA, Greenhalgh J, Potter CM. Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings. Qual Life Res. 2021;30:3015–33.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Manalili KSM. Using implementation science to inform the integration of electronic patient-reported experience measures (ePREMs) into healthcare quality improvement: description of a theory-based application in primary care. Qual Life Res. 2021;30:3073–84.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Patey AM, Fontaine, G., Francis, J. J., McCleary, N., Presseau, J., & Grimshaw, J. M. Healthcare professional behaviour: health impact, prevalence of evidence-based behaviours, correlates and interventions. Psychol Health. 2022:766–794.https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2022.2100887

32.

Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-139.CrossRef

33.

Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implementation Sci. 2017;10:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1.CrossRef

34.

Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implement Sci. 2015;10:109. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0295-0.

35.

Aromataris E MZ. Chapter 11: Umbrella Reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, eds. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2020.

36.

Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey C, Holly C, Kahlil H, Tungpunkom P. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an Umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):132–40.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Moher D, Shamseer, L., Clarke, M. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

38.

Gates MGA, Pieper D, Fernandes RM, Tricco AC, Moher D, et al. Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement. BMJ. 2022;378: e070849. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-070849.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Moher D. The. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2020;2021(88).

40.

Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal, S., Young, B., Jones, D., & Sutton, A. Integrative approaches to qualitative and quantitative evidence. Health Development Agency; 2004.

41.

Boudewijns EA, Trucchi, M., van der Kleij, R. M., Vermond, D., Hoffman, C. M., Chavannes, N. H., ... & Brakema, E. A. Facilitators and barriers to the implementation of improved solid fuel cookstoves and clean fuels in low-income and middle-income countries: an umbrella review. Lancet Planet Health. 2022.

42.

Lewin SGC, Munthe-Kaas H, et al. Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Med. 2015;12(10):e1001895. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001895. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

The Centre for Implementation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 2.0. Adapted from "The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback," by Damschroder, L.J., Reardon, C.M., Widerquist, M.A.O. et al., 2022, Implementation Sci 17, 75. Image copyright 2022 by The Center for Implementation. https://thecenterforimplementation.com/toolbox/cfir

44.

Lewin S, Booth A, Glenton C, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series. Implementation Sci 2018;13(Suppl 1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3.

Title: Barriers and enablers to the implementation of patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs/PREMs): protocol for an umbrella review
Authors: Guillaume Fontaine
Marie-Eve Poitras
Maxime Sasseville
Marie-Pascale Pomey
Jérôme Ouellet
Lydia Ould Brahim
Sydney Wasserman
Frédéric Bergeron
Sylvie D. Lambert
Publication date: 01-12-2024
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02512-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Barriers and enablers to the implementation of patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs/PREMs): protocol for an umbrella review

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Comparative analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews over three decades

Correction: Advancements in additive manufacturing for video laryngoscopes: a comprehensive scoping and technological review

Full-thickness skin graft versus split-thickness skin graft for radial forearm free flap donor site closure: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Protocol for spatial prediction of soil transmitted helminth prevalence in the Western Pacific region using a meta-analytical approach

COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy among Malawians: a scoping review

The effects of manual therapy in pain and safety of patients with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis