Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Primary Care
Published in: BMC Primary Care 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Identification, description and appraisal of generic PROMs for primary care: a systematic review

Authors: Mairead Murphy, Sandra Hollinghurst, Chris Salisbury

Published in: BMC Primary Care | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Patients attend primary care with many types of problems and to achieve a range of possible outcomes. There is currently a lack of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) designed to capture these diverse outcomes. The objective of this systematic review was to identify, describe and appraise generic PROMs suitable for measuring outcomes from primary care.

Methods

We carried out a systematic Medline search, supplemented by other online and hand-searches. All potentially relevant PROMs were itemised in a long-list. Each PROM in the long-list which met inclusion criteria was included in a short-list. Short-listed PROMs were then described in terms of their measurement properties and construct, based on a previously published description of primary care outcome as three constructs: health status, health empowerment and health perceptions. PROMs were appraised in terms of extent of psychometric testing (extensive, moderate, low) and level of responsiveness (high, medium, low, unknown).

Results

More than 5000 abstracts were identified and screened to identify PROMs potentially suitable for measuring outcomes from primary care. 321 PROMs were long-listed, and twenty PROMs were catalogued in detail. There were five PROMs which measured change directly, without need for a baseline. Although these had less strong psychometric properties, they may be more responsive to change than PROMs which capture status at a point in time. No instruments provided coverage of all three constructs. Of the health status questionnaires, the most extensively tested was the SF-36. Of the health empowerment instruments, the PEI, PAM and heiQ provided the best combination of responsiveness and psychometric testing. The health perceptions instruments were all less responsive to change, and may measure a form of health perception which is difficult to shift in primary care.

Conclusions

This systematic review is the first of its kind to identify papers describing the development and validation of generic PROMs suitable for measuring outcomes from primary care. It identified that: 1) to date, there is no instrument which comprehensively covers the outcomes commonly sought in primary care, and 2) there are different benefits both to PROMs which measure status at a point in time, and PROMs which measure change directly.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? J Am Med Assoc. 1988;260(12):1743–8.CrossRef
2.
Fitzpatrick R. Patient-reported outcomes and performance measurement. In: Performance Measurement for Health System Improvement: Experiences, Challenges and Prospect, smith P, et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009. p. 63–86.
3.
Black N, et al. Patient-reported outcomes: pathways to better health, better services, and better societies. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(5):1103–12.CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
Garratt A, et al. Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. Br Med J. 2002;324(7351):1417.CrossRef
6.
Barnett K, et al. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2012;380(9836):37–43.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Salisbury C, et al. Epidemiology and impact of multimorbidity in primary care: a retrospective cohort study. Br J Gen Pract. 2011;61(582):e12–21.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Olayiwola JN, et al. Electronic consultations to improve the primary care-specialty care Interface for cardiology in the medically underserved: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med. 2016;14(2):133–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Thom DH, et al. A qualitative study of how health coaches support patients in making health-related decisions and behavioral changes. The Annals of Family Medicine. 2016;14(6):509–16.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Sharma AE, et al. What happens after health coaching? Observational study 1 year following a randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med. 2016;14(3):200–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Hudon C, et al. Case Management in Primary Care for frequent users of health care services with chronic diseases: a qualitative study of patient and family experience. Ann Fam Med. 2015;13(6):523–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
13.
Fitzpatrick R, Garratt A, Schmidt L. Instruments for mental health: a review., report from the patient-reported health instruments group to the Department of Health. 2000.
14.
Herbert RJ, et al. A systematic review of questionnaires measuring health-related empowerment. Research & Theory for Nursing Practice. 2009;23(2):107–32.CrossRef
15.
16.
Hunter J, Leeder S. Patient questionnaires for use in the integrative medicine primary care setting—a systematic literature review. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2013;5(3):194–216.CrossRef
17.
Hudon C, et al. Measuring patients’ perceptions of patient-centered care: a systematic review of tools for family medicine. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9(2):155–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Ricci-Cabello I, et al. Measuring experiences and outcomes of patient safety in primary care: a systematic review of available instruments. Fam Pract. 2015;32(1):106–19.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Haywood KL, Garratt AM, Fitzpatrick R. Quality of life in older people: a structured review of self-assessed health instruments. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research. 2006;6(2):181–94.CrossRef
20.
Murphy M, et al. Patient and practitioners’ views on the most important outcomes arising from primary care consultations: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16:108.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Liberati A, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. Br Med J. 2009;339:b2700.CrossRef
22.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. York: CRD's guide for undertaking reviews in health care; 2009.
23.
McDowell I. Measuring Health. 2 ed. 2006, New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
Bowling A. Measuring Health: A review of quality of life measurement scales. 3 ed. Vol. 1. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2004.
25.
26.
Valderas JM, Alonso J. Patient reported outcome measures: a model-based classification system for research and clinical practice. Qual Life Res. 2008;17(9):1125–35.CrossRefPubMed
27.
28.
Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.CrossRef
29.
Al-Janabi H, Flynn TN, Coast J. Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(1):167–76.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Richardson JR, et al. Construction of the descriptive system for the assessment of quality of life AQoL-6D utility instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
32.
Haddad S, et al. Patient perception of quality following a visit to a doctor in a primary care unit. Fam Pract. 2000;17(1):21–9.CrossRefPubMed
33.
34.
Ware, J.E., Jr. And C.D. Sherbourne, The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care, 1992. 30(6): p. 473–483.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Ware J, et al. In: Metric Q, editor. Chapter 1, in User's Manual for the SF-36v2 Health Survey. Lincoln: Quality Metric; 2007.
36.
Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220–33.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Nelson EC, et al. The functional status of patients. How can it be measured in physicians’ offices? Med Care. 1990;28(12):1111–26.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Eton DT, et al. Developing a self-report outcome measure for complementary and alternative medicine. Explore (NY). 2005;1(3):177–85.CrossRef
39.
40.
41.
Devlin NJ, Parkin D, Browne J. Patient-reported outcome measures in the NHS: new methods for analysing and reporting EQ-5D data. Health Econ. 2010;19(8):886–905.CrossRefPubMed
42.
National Institute of Clinical Excellence Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. 2013.
43.
Paterson C. Measuring outcomes in primary care: a patient generated measure, MYMOP, compared with the SF-36 health survey. Br Med J. 1996;312(7037):1016–20.CrossRef
44.
45.
Campbell JL, et al. Telephone triage for management of same-day consultation requests in general practice (the ESTEEM trial): a cluster-randomised controlled trial and cost-consequence analysis. Lancet. 2014;384(9957):1859–68.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Mackay G. Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy. 2009;17(3):163–70.CrossRef
47.
Salisbury C, et al. Effectiveness of PhysioDirect telephone assessment and advice services for patients with musculoskeletal problems: pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Br Med J. 2013;346(jan29 3):f43.CrossRef
48.
Higgins M, et al. Evaluation report of wellness enhancement Learning,Piloted for people with CFS/ME. 2009, TheWEL Programme: www.​thewel.​org.
49.
Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42(9):851–9.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Benson T, et al. Evaluation of a new short generic measure of health status: howRu. Informatics in Primary Care. 2011;18:89–101.
51.
Benson T, et al. Comparison of howRU and EQ-5D measures of health-related quality of life in an outpatient clinic. Informatics in Primary Care. 2013;21(1):12–7.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Eton DT, Temple LM, Koffler K. Pilot validation of a self-report outcome measure of complementary and alternative medicine. Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing. 2007;3(6):592–9.CrossRef
53.
Flower A, Lewith GT, Little P. A feasibility study exploring the role of Chinese herbal medicine in the treatment of endometriosis. J Altern Complement Med. 2011;17(8):691–9.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Ahmed S, et al. The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: implications for clinical practice and health care policy. Med Care. 2012;50(12):1060–70.CrossRefPubMed
55.
56.
Osborne RH, Elsworth GR, Whitfield K. The health education impact questionnaire (heiQ): an outcomes and evaluation measure for patient education and self-management interventions for people with chronic conditions. Patient Education & Counseling. 2007;66(2):192–201.CrossRef
57.
Elsworth GR, Nolte S, Osborne RH. Factor structure and measurement invariance of the health education impact questionnaire: does the subjectivity of the response perspective threaten the contextual validity of inferences? SAGE Open Medicine. 2015;3:1–13.CrossRef
58.
Howie JG, et al. A comparison of a patient enablement instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as an outcome measure of primary care consultations. Fam Pract. 1998;15(2):165–71.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Kristjansson E, et al. Development of the effective musculoskeletal consumer scale. J Rheumatol. 2007;34(6):1392–400.PubMed
60.
Santesso N, et al. Responsiveness of the effective consumer scale (EC-17). J Rheumatol. 2009;36(9):2087–91.CrossRefPubMed
61.
62.
Bayliss EA, Ellis JL, Steiner JF. Barriers to self-management and quality-of-life outcomes in seniors with multimorbidities. Ann Fam Med. 2007;5(5):395–402.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
63.
Bann CM, Sirois FM, Walsh EG. Provider support in complementary and alternative medicine: exploring the role of patient empowerment. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine. 2010;16(7):745–52.CrossRef
64.
Nolte S, et al. Tests of measurement invariance failed to support the application of the “then-test”. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(11):1173–80.CrossRefPubMed
65.
Cadilhac DA, et al. A phase II multicentered, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial of the stroke self-management program. Stroke. 2011;42(6):1673–9.CrossRefPubMed
66.
Francis KL, et al. Effectiveness of a community-based osteoporosis education and self-management course: a wait list controlled trial. Osteoporos Int. 2009;20(9):1563–70.CrossRefPubMed
67.
Stone GR, Packer TL. Evaluation of a rural chronic disease self-management program. Rural Remote Health. 2010;10(1):1203.PubMed
68.
Mosen DM, et al. Is patient activation associated with outcomes of care for adults with chronic conditions? Journal of Ambulatory Care Management. 2007;30(1):21–9.CrossRefPubMed
69.
McDonald EM, et al. Improvements in health behaviors and health status among newly insured members of an innovative health access plan. J Community Health. 2013;38(2):301–9.CrossRefPubMed
70.
Deen D, et al. Asking questions: the effect of a brief intervention in community health centers on patient activation. Patient Education and Counselling. 2011;84(2):257–60.CrossRef
71.
Kennedy CA, et al. A prospective comparison of telemedicine versus in-person delivery of an interprofessional education program for adults with inflammatory arthritis. J Telemed Telecare. 2016;3:1–10.
72.
Paterson C. Measuring changes in self-concept: a qualitative evaluation of outcome questionnaires in people having acupuncture for their chronic health problems. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2006;6:7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
73.
74.
Broadbent E, et al. The brief illness perception questionnaire. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60(6):631–7.CrossRefPubMed
75.
Herrmann D. Reporting current, past, and changed health status. What we know about distortion. Med Care. 1995;33(4 Suppl):AS89–94.PubMed
76.
77.
Petrie KJ, Jago LA, Devcich DA. The role of illness perceptions in patients with medical conditions. Current Opinion in Psychiatry. 2007;20(2):163–7.CrossRefPubMed
78.
Petrie KJ, et al. Changing illness perceptions after myocardial infarction: an early intervention randomized controlled trial. Psychosom Med. 2002;64(4):580–6.CrossRefPubMed
79.
Murphy, M., S. Hollinghurst, and C. Salisbury. The primary care outcomes questionnaire. 2017 [cited 2017 22/05/2017].
80.
81.
Higgins, J. and S. Green, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 The Cochrane Collaboration, Editor. updated March 2011.
82.
Mokkink LB, et al. Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(3):313–33.CrossRefPubMed
83.
Terwee CB, et al. Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(8):1115–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
84.
85.
O'Boyle CA, et al. Individual quality of life in patients undergoing hip replacement. Lancet. 1992;339(8801):1088–91.CrossRefPubMed
86.
Ruta DA, et al. A new approach to the measurement of quality of life. The patient-generated index. Med Care. 1994;32(11):1109–26.CrossRefPubMed
87.
Patel KK, Veenstra DL, Patrick DL. A review of selected patient-generated outcome measures and their application in clinical trials. Value Health. 2003;6(5):595–603.CrossRefPubMed
88.
MacDuff C, Russell EM. The problem of measuring change in individual health-related quality of life by postal questionnaire: use of the patient-generated index in a disabled population. Qual Life Res. 1998;7(8):761–9.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Identification, description and appraisal of generic PROMs for primary care: a systematic review
Authors
Mairead Murphy
Sandra Hollinghurst
Chris Salisbury
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Primary Care / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 2731-4553
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-018-0722-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Primary Care 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Preliminary effects of a regional approached multidisciplinary educational program on healthcare utilization in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: an observational study

Research article

Burnout syndrome and its prevalence in primary care nursing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Research article

How well do public sector primary care providers function as medical generalists in Cape Town: a descriptive survey

Research article

Expanding the role of clinical pharmacists on interdisciplinary primary care teams for chronic pain and opioid management

Research article

The effect of a new lifetime-cardiovascular-risk display on patients’ motivation to participate in shared decision-making

Research article

Patient safety and safety culture in primary health care: a systematic review