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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures: The developers’ perspective

Authors: Bianca Wiering, Dolf de Boer, Diana Delnoij

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
Brédart A, Marrel A, Abetz-Webb L, Lasch K, Acquadro C. Interviewing to develop Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) measures for clinical research: eliciting patients’ experience. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Black N: Patient-reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2013, 346:f167.
3.
Burge P, Devlin N, Appleby J, Gallo F, Nason E, Ling T: Understanding patients’ choices at the point of referral. 2006.
4.
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
5.
Wu AW, Snyder C, Clancy CM, Steinwachs DM. Adding the patient perspective to comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff. 2010;29(10):1863–71.CrossRef
6.
7.
Nelson EC, Eftimovska E, Lind C, Hager A, Wasson JH, Lindblad S. Patient-reported outcome measures in practice. BMJ. 2015;350:g7818.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(14):i-iv, 1-74.PubMed
9.
Paterson C. Seeking the patient's perspective: a qualitative assessment of EuroQol, COOP-WONCA charts and MYMOP. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(5):871–81.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Kirwan JR, Fries JF, Hewlett S, Osborne RH. Patient perspective: choosing or developing instruments. J Rheumatol. 2011;38(8):1716–9.CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Staniszewska S, Adebajo A, Barber R, Beresford P, Brady LM, Brett J, Elliott J, Evans D, Haywood KL, Jones D. Developing the evidence base of patient and public involvement in health and social care research: the case for measuring impact. Int J Consum Stud. 2011;35(6):628–32.CrossRef
13.
Meadows KA. Patient-reported outcome measures: an overview. Br J Community Nurs. 2011;16(3):146–51.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Trujols J, Portella MJ, Iraurgi I, Campins MJ, Siñol N. Cobos JPdL: Patient-reported outcome measures: Are they patient-generated, patient-centred or patient-valued? J Ment Health. 2013;22(6):555–62.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Haywood KL. Patient-reported outcome II: selecting appropriate measures for musculoskeletal care. Musculoskeletal care. 2007;5(2):72–90.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Turner RR, Quittner AL, Parasuraman BM, Kallich JD, Cleeland CS. Patient-Reported Outcomes: Instrument Development and Selection Issues. Value Health. 2007;10(s2):S86–93.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Coyne KS, Tubaro A, Brubaker L, Bavendam T. Development and validation of patient-reported outcomes measures for overactive bladder: a review of concepts. Urology. 2006;68(2):9–16.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy NK, Martin ML, Molsen E, Ring L. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health. 2011;14(8):967–77.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy NK, Martin ML, Molsen E, Ring L. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: part 2—assessing respondent understanding. Value Health. 2011;14(8):978–88.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Fossey EM, Harvey CA. A conceptual review of functioning: implications for the development of consumer outcome measures. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2001;35(1):91–8.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Staniszewska S, Haywood KL, Brett J, Tutton L. Patient and public involvement in patient-reported outcome measures. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. 2012;5(2):79–87.CrossRefPubMed
22.
23.
Haywood KL, Staniszewska S, Chapman S. Quality and acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures used in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME): a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(1):35–52.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Wiering B, Boer D, Delnoij D. Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures: a scoping review. Health Expect. 2017;20(1):11–23.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Dür M, Coenen M, Stoffer MA, Fialka-Moser V, Kautzky-Willer A, Kjeken I, Drăgoi RG, Mattsson M, Boström C, Smolen J. Do patient-reported outcome measures cover personal factors important to people with rheumatoid arthritis? A mixed methods design using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as frame of reference. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1):27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Staniszewska S. Patient and public involvement in health services and health research: A brief overview of evidence, policy and activity. J Res Nurs. 2009;14(4):295–8.CrossRef
27.
Staniszewska S, Herron-Marx S, Mockford C. Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement: the need for an evidence base. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008;20(6):373–4.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Health UDo, Services H: PROMIS: Instrument Development and Psychometric Evaluation Scientific Standards 2012.
29.
Fylan F. Semi structured interviewing. A handbook of research methods for clinical and health psychology. 2005:65–78.
30.
Thomas DR. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Eval. 2006;27(2):237–46.CrossRef
31.
Muhr T. Atlas.ti. Berlin, Germany: Scientific Software Development; 1993.
32.
33.
Francis JJ, Johnston M, Robertson C, Glidewell L, Entwistle V, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM. What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol Health. 2010;25(10):1229–45.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Food and Drug Administration US. Guidance for industry patient-related outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Washington: US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration; 2009.
35.
Conway J. Patients and families: powerful new partners for healthcare and caregivers. Healthc Exe. 2008;23:60–2.
36.
Groene O. Patient and Public Involvement in Developing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. 2012;5(2):75–7.CrossRef
37.
38.
Lasker JN, Sogolow ED, Sharim RR. The role of an online community for people with a rare disease: content analysis of messages posted on a primary biliary cirrhosis mailinglist. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7(1):e10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Campbell MK, Meier A, Carr C, Enga Z, James AS, Reedy J, Zheng B. Health Behavior Changes after Colon Cancer: A Comparison of Findings from Face to Face and On Line Focus Groups. Family & community health. 2001;24(3):88–103.CrossRef
40.
Synnot A, Hill S, Summers M, Taylor M. Comparing face-to-face and online qualitative research with people with multiple sclerosis. Qual Health Res. 2014;24(3):431-8. doi:10.​1177/​1049732314523840​.
41.
Egan J, Chenoweth L, McAuliffe D. Email-facilitated qualitative interviews with traumatic brain injury survivors: A new and accessible method. Brain Inj. 2006;20(12):1283–94.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Tusler M. Does publicizing hospital performance stimulate quality improvement efforts? Health Aff. 2003;22(2):84–94.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures: The developers’ perspective
Authors
Bianca Wiering
Dolf de Boer
Diana Delnoij
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2582-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Health Services Research 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Willingness to pay and willingness to accept in a patient-centered blood pressure control study

Research article

The ecology of medical care on an isolated island in Okinawa, Japan: a retrospective open cohort study

Research article

Advancing team-based primary health care: a comparative analysis of policies in western Canada

Research article

Development and evaluation of the content validity, practicability and feasibility of the Innovative dementia-oriented Assessment system for challenging behaviour in residents with dementia

Research article

Cost analysis of two community-based HIV testing service modalities led by a Non-Governmental Organization in Cape Town, South Africa

Research article

Pediatric HIV care and treatment services in Tanzania: implications for survival