Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Care | Protocol

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

Authors: Angela C. Wolff, Andrea Dresselhuis, Samar Hejazi, Duncan Dixon, Deborah Gibson, A. Fuchsia Howard, Sarah Liva, Barbara Astle, Sheryl Reimer-Kirkham, Vanessa K. Noonan, Lisa Edwards

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

Substantial literature has highlighted the importance of patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs, respectively) to collect clinically relevant information to better understand and address what matters to patients. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize the evidence about how healthcare providers implement individual-level PROMs and PREMs data into daily practice.

Methods

This mixed methods systematic review protocol describes the design of our synthesis of the peer-reviewed research evidence (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods), systematic reviews, organizational implementation projects, expert opinion, and grey literature. Keyword synonyms for “PROMs,” PREMs,” and “implementation” will be used to search eight databases (i.e., MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase, SPORTDiscus, Evidence-based Medicine Reviews, and ProQuest (Dissertation and Theses)) with limiters of English from 2009 onwards. Study selection criteria include implementation at the point-of-care by healthcare providers in any practice setting. Eligible studies will be critically appraised using validated tools (e.g., Joanna Briggs Institute). Guided by the review questions, data extraction and synthesis will occur simultaneously to identify biographical information and methodological characteristics as well as classify study findings related to implementation processes and strategies. As part of the narrative synthesis approach, two frameworks will be utilized: (a) Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify influential factors of PROMs and PREMs implementation and (b) Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) to illicit strategies. Data management will be undertaken using NVivo 12^TM.

Discussion

Data from PROMs and PREMs are critical to adopt a person-centered approach to healthcare. Findings from this review will guide subsequent phases of a larger project that includes interviews and a consensus-building forum with end users to create guidelines for implementing PROMs and PREMs at the point of care.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42020182904.

Available only for authorised users

World Health Organization (WHO). Framework on integrated people-centred health services: 69th World Health Assembly; 2016. Available from: https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA69/A69_39-en.pdf?ua=1&ua=1.

World Health Organization (WHO). Framework on integrated people-centred health services: an overview.: World Health Organization; n.d. Available from: https://www.who.int/servicedeliverysafety/areas/people-centred-care/Overview_IPCHS_final.pdf?ua=1. Accessed 1 Sept 2020.

Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). Patient-centred measurement and reporting in Canada: launching the discussion toward a future state. Ottawa: CIHI; 2017.

Lavallee DC, Chenok KE, Love RM, Petersen C, Holve E, Segal CD, et al. Incorporating patient-reported outcomes into health care to engage patients and enhance care. Health Aff. 2016;35(4):575–82. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1362.CrossRef

Antunes B, Harding R, Higginson IJ. Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice: a systematic review of facilitators and barriers. Palliat Med. 2014;28(2):158–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216313491619.CrossRefPubMed

Sawatzky R, Laforest E, Schick-Makaroff K, Stajduhar K, Reimer-Kirkham S, Krawczyk M, et al. Design and introduction of a quality of life assessment and practice support system: perspectives from palliative care settings. J Patient Report Outcomes. 2017;2:36.CrossRef

International Society for Quality of Life Research, prepared by Aaronson N, Elliott T, Greenhalgh J, Halyard M, Hess R, et al. User’s guide to implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice. 2015. 47 p.

Greenhalgh J, Long AF, Flynn R. The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: lack of impact or lack of theory? Soc Sci Med. 2005;60(4):833–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.06.022.CrossRefPubMed

Greenhalgh J, Meadows K. The effectiveness of the use of patient-based measures of health in routine practice in improving the process and outcomes of patient care: a literature review. J Eval Clin Pract. 1999;5(4):401–16. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2753.1999.00209.x.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Yang LY, Manhas DS, Howard AF, Olson RA. Patient-reported outcome use in oncology: a systematic review of the impact on patient-clinician communication. Support Care Cancer. 2018;26(1):41–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3865-7.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Boyce MB, Browne JP, Greenhalgh J. The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(6):508–18. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002524.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Gleeson H, Calderon A, Swami V, Deighton J, Wolpert M, Edbrooke-Childs J. Systematic review of approaches to using patient experience data for quality improvement in healthcare settings. BMJ Open. 2016;6(8):e011907-e.CrossRef

13.

Lohr KN, Zebrack BJ. Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: challenges and opportunities. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(1):99–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9413-7.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Dickinson F, McCauley M, Smith H, van den Broek N. Patient reported outcome measures for use in pregnancy and childbirth: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):155–63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2318-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Haverman L, van Oers HA, Limperg PF, Hijmans CT, Schepers SA, Sint Nicolaas SM, et al. Implementation of electronic patient reported outcomes in pediatric daily clinical practice: the KLIK experience. Clin Pract Pediatr Psychol. 2014;2(1):50–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpp0000043.CrossRef

16.

Absolom K, Gibson A, Velikova G. Engaging patients and clinicians in online reporting of adverse effects during chemotherapy for cancer: the eRAPID System (Electronic Patient Self-Reporting of Adverse Events: Patient Information and aDvice). Med Care. 2019;57(Suppl 5 Suppl 1):S59–65.CrossRef

17.

Clinical Oncology Society of Australia. Implementing monitoring of patient-reported outcomes into cancer care in Australia: a COSA think tank. 2018.

18.

Anatchkova M, Donelson SM, Skalicky AM, McHorney CA, Jagun D, Whiteley J. Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature. J Patient Report Outcomes. 2018;2(1):64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0091-0.CrossRef

19.

Greenhalgh J. The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why? Qual Life Res. 2009;18(1):115–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9430-6.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Javier M, Kim JY, Toone E, Granger BB. Overcoming barriers to using patient-reported outcomes for clinical inquiry. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2016;27(2):230–5. https://doi.org/10.4037/aacnacc2016265.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Bantug ET, Coles T, Smith KC, Snyder CF, Rouette J, Brundage MD. Graphical displays of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) for use in clinical practice: what makes a pro picture worth a thousand words? Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(4):483–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.10.027.CrossRefPubMed

22.

van Egdom LSE, Oemrawsingh A, Verweij LM, Lingsma HF, Koppert LB, Verhoef C, et al. Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in clinical breast cancer care: a systematic review. Value Health. 2019;22(10):1197–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.04.1927.CrossRefPubMed

23.

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-Report Outcomes. 2018;2(1):46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0072-3.CrossRef

24.

Gelkopf M, Mazor Y, Roe D. A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) and provider assessment in mental health: goals, implementation, setting, measurement characteristics and barriers. Int J Qual Health Care. 2020;33(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzz133.

25.

Duncan EA, Murray J. The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(1):96. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-96.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Howell D, Molloy S, Wilkinson K, Green E, Orchard K, Wang 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(9):1846–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv181.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. Br Med J. 2015;349:1–25.CrossRef

28.

Lizarondo L, Stern C, Carrier J, Godfrey C, Rieger K, Salmond S, et al. Chapter 8: Mixed methods systematic reviews. In: MZ AE, editor. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual. Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017. p. 272–310.

29.

Garrard J. Health sciences literature review made easy. 5th ed. Minneapolis: Jones and Bartlett Learning; 2017. p. 240.

30.

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JE. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009.

32.

McArthur A, Klugarova J, Yan H, Florescu S. Chapter 4: Systematic reviews of text and opinion. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual. Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017. p. 136–77.

33.

Clarivate Analytics. EndNote X9 (Version 9.3.3) [Computer software]. 2020.

34.

Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J. An introduction to systematic reviews. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2012. p. 288.

35.

Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n160.CrossRef

36.

Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthcare. 2015;13(3):132–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055.CrossRef

37.

Lockwood C, Munn Z, Porritt K. Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. Int J Evid Based Healthcare. 2015;13(3):179–87. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000062.CrossRef

38.

Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, M. C, et al. Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018 user guide: McGill University; 2018b. Available from: http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com. Accessed 1 Sept 2020.

39.

McArthur A, Klugárová J, Yan H, Florescu S. Innovations in the systematic review of text and opinion. Int J Evid Based Healthcare. 2015;13(3):188–95. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000060.CrossRef

40.

Dang D, Dearholt S. Johns Hopkins nursing evidence-based practice: model and guidelines. 3rd ed. Indianapolis: Sigma Theta Tau International; 2017.

41.

Aromataris E, Munn Z. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewer’s manual. Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017.

42.

Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E, Sears K, Sfetcu R, et al. Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual. Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017.

43.

Hempel S, Shekelle PG, Liu JL, Sherwood Danz M, Foy R, Lim Y, et al. Development of the quality improvement minimum quality criteria set (QI-MQCS): a tool for critical appraisal of quality improvement intervention publications. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24(12):796–804. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003151.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D, Batalden P, Davidoff F, Stevens D. Squire 2.0 (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. Am J Crit Care. 2015;24(6):466–73. https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2015455.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D, Tufanaru C. Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data. Int J Evid Based Healthcare. 2015;13(3):147153.CrossRef

46.

Munn Z, Moola S, Riitano D, Lisy K. The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Int J Health Policy Manage. 2014;3(3):123–8. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2014.71.CrossRef

47.

Center for Evidence Based Management. Critical appraisal checklist for cross-sectional study 2014.

48.

Downes MJ, Brennan ML, Williams HC, Dean RS. Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS). BMJ Open. 2016;6(12):1–7.CrossRef

49.

Loney PL, Chambers LW, Bennett KJ, Roberts JG, Stratford PW. Critical appraisal of the health research literature: prevalence or incidence of a health problem. Chronic Dis Canada. 1998;19(4):170–6.

50.

Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, et al. The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ Information. 2018a;34(4):285–91.CrossRef

51.

Hong QN, Pluye P, Fabregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;111:49–59 e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.008.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Joanna Briggs Institute Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation Working Party. JBI levels of evidence Australia: Joanna Briggs Institute; 2013. Available from: https://joannabriggs.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/JBI-Levels-of-evidence_2014_0.pdf. Accessed 1 Sept 2020.

53.

Joanna Briggs Institute Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation Working Party. Supporting document for the Joanna Briggs Institute levels of evidence and grades of recommendation: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2014. Available from: https://joannabriggs.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/JBI%20Levels%20of%20Evidence%20Supporting%20Documents-v2.pdf. Accessed 1 Sept 2020.

54.

Joanna Briggs Institute Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation Working Party. JBI grades of recommendation. Australia: Joanna Briggs Institute; 2013. Available from: https://joannabriggs.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/JBI-grades-of-recommendation_2014.pdf. Accessed 1 Sept 2020.

55.

QSR International. NVivo (Version 12.6) [Computer software]. 2019.

56.

Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Mark Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: ESRC Methods Programme; 2006. p. 92.

57.

Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:1–15.CrossRef

58.

Perry CK, Damschroder LJ, Hemler JR, Woodson TT, Ono SS, Cohen DJ. Specifying and comparing implementation strategies across seven large implementation interventions: a practical application of theory. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0876-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

59.

Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, Damschroder LJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, 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(1):109. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0295-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

60.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Plos Med. 2021;18(3):e1003583. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003583.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

61.

International Society for Quality of Life Research, prepared by Chan E, Edwards T, Haywood K, Mikles S, Newton L. Companion guide to implementing patient reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice 2018. 15.

62.

Chan EKH, Edwards TC, Haywood K, Mikles SP, Newton L. Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: a companion guide to the ISOQOL user’s guide. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(3):621–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2048-4.CrossRefPubMed

63.

Austin E, LeRouge C, Hartzler AL, Segal C, Lavallee DC. Capturing the patient voice: implementing patient-reported outcomes across the health system. Qual Life Res. 2020;29(2):347–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02320-8.CrossRefPubMed

64.

Snyder C, Wu AW. Users’ guide to integrating patient-reported outcomes in electronic health records. Baltimore: John Hopkins University; 2016 2017.

Title: 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
Authors: Angela C. Wolff
Andrea Dresselhuis
Samar Hejazi
Duncan Dixon
Deborah Gibson
A. Fuchsia Howard
Sarah Liva
Barbara Astle
Sheryl Reimer-Kirkham
Vanessa K. Noonan
Lisa Edwards
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keyword: Care
Published in: Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01725-2

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Correction to: Community mobilisation approaches to preventing and reducing adolescent multiple risk behaviour: a realist review protocol

Repurposing existing medications for coronavirus disease 2019: protocol for a rapid and living systematic review

Vitamin D status and blood pressure in children and adolescents: a systematic review of observational studies

The role of pharmacy in the management of cardiometabolic risk, metabolic syndrome and related diseases in severe mental illness: a mixed-methods systematic literature review

Inequalities in utilization and provision of dental services: a scoping review

Iterative guided machine learning-assisted systematic literature reviews: a diabetes case study