Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 2/2012

01-06-2012 | Current Opinion

Patient and Public Involvement in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Evolution Not Revolution

Authors: Dr Sophie Staniszewska, Kirstie L. Haywood, Jo Brett, Liz Tutton

Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Issue 2/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

This paper considers the potential for collaborative patient and public involvement in the development, application, evaluation, and interpretation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The development of PROMs has followed a well trodden methodological path, with patients contributing as research subjects to the content of many PROMs. This paper argues that the development of PROMs should embrace more collaborative forms of patient and public involvement with patients as research partners in the research process, not just as those individuals who are consulted or as subjects, from whom data are sourced, to ensure the acceptability, relevance, and quality of research. We consider the potential for patients to be involved in a much wider range of methodological activities in PROM development working in partnership with researchers, which we hope will promote paradigmal evolution rather than revolution.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Patrick DL, Burke LB, Powers JH, et al. Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labelling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health 2007; 10Suppl. 2: S125–37PubMedCrossRef Patrick DL, Burke LB, Powers JH, et al. Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labelling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health 2007; 10Suppl. 2: S125–37PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Dawson J, Doll H, Fitzpatrick R, et al. The routine use of patient reported outcome measures in healthcare settings. BMJ 2010; 340: c186PubMedCrossRef Dawson J, Doll H, Fitzpatrick R, et al. The routine use of patient reported outcome measures in healthcare settings. BMJ 2010; 340: c186PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Barham L, Devlin N. Patient-reported outcome measures: implications for nursing. Nurs Stand 2011; 25(18): 42–5PubMed Barham L, Devlin N. Patient-reported outcome measures: implications for nursing. Nurs Stand 2011; 25(18): 42–5PubMed
4.
go back to reference Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, et al. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 1998; 2: 1–74PubMed Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, et al. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 1998; 2: 1–74PubMed
5.
go back to reference Hewlett SA. Patients and clinicians have different perspectives on outcomes in arthritis. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 877–9PubMed Hewlett SA. Patients and clinicians have different perspectives on outcomes in arthritis. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 877–9PubMed
6.
go back to reference Kessler L, Ramsey SD. The outcomes of the cancer outcomes research symposium: a commentary. Med Care 2002; 40(6 Suppl.): III104–8PubMed Kessler L, Ramsey SD. The outcomes of the cancer outcomes research symposium: a commentary. Med Care 2002; 40(6 Suppl.): III104–8PubMed
7.
go back to reference Kvien TK, Heiberg T. Patient perspective in outcome assessments — perceptions or something more? J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 873–6PubMed Kvien TK, Heiberg T. Patient perspective in outcome assessments — perceptions or something more? J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 873–6PubMed
8.
go back to reference Liang MH. Pushing the limits of patient-oriented outcome measurements in the search for disease modifying treatments for osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 2004; 70: 61–5 Liang MH. Pushing the limits of patient-oriented outcome measurements in the search for disease modifying treatments for osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 2004; 70: 61–5
9.
go back to reference Van Echteld I, Cieza A, Boonen A, et al. Identification of the most common problems by patients with ankylosing spondylitis using the international classification of functioning, disability and health. J Rheumatol 2006; 33(12): 2475–83PubMed Van Echteld I, Cieza A, Boonen A, et al. Identification of the most common problems by patients with ankylosing spondylitis using the international classification of functioning, disability and health. J Rheumatol 2006; 33(12): 2475–83PubMed
10.
go back to reference Marshall S, Haywood K, Fitzpatrick R. Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review. J Eval Clin Pract 2006; 12(5): 559–68PubMedCrossRef Marshall S, Haywood K, Fitzpatrick R. Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review. J Eval Clin Pract 2006; 12(5): 559–68PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Haywood K, Marshall SS, Fitzpatrick R. Patient participation in the consultation process: a structured review of intervention strategies. Patient Educ Couns 2006 Oct; 63(1-2): 12–23PubMedCrossRef Haywood K, Marshall SS, Fitzpatrick R. Patient participation in the consultation process: a structured review of intervention strategies. Patient Educ Couns 2006 Oct; 63(1-2): 12–23PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Greenhalgh J, Long AF, Flynn R. The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: lack of impact or lack of theory — the clinician’s point of view. Soc Sci Med 2005; 60: 833–43PubMedCrossRef Greenhalgh J, Long AF, Flynn R. The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: lack of impact or lack of theory — the clinician’s point of view. Soc Sci Med 2005; 60: 833–43PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Vallance-Owen A, Cubbin S, Warren V, et al. Outcome monitoring to facilitate clinical governance experience from a national programme in the independent sector. J Public Health 2004; 26: 187–92CrossRef Vallance-Owen A, Cubbin S, Warren V, et al. Outcome monitoring to facilitate clinical governance experience from a national programme in the independent sector. J Public Health 2004; 26: 187–92CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Department of Health. Guidance on the routine collection of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for the NHS in England 2009/10. London: Department of Health, 2008 Department of Health. Guidance on the routine collection of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for the NHS in England 2009/10. London: Department of Health, 2008
16.
go back to reference Staley K. Exploring impact: public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE, 2009 Staley K. Exploring impact: public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE, 2009
17.
go back to reference Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. The PIRICOM study: a systematic review of the conceptualisation, measurement, impact and outcomes of patients and public involvement in health and social care research. London: UK Clinical Research Collaboration, 2009 Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. The PIRICOM study: a systematic review of the conceptualisation, measurement, impact and outcomes of patients and public involvement in health and social care research. London: UK Clinical Research Collaboration, 2009
18.
go back to reference Mockford C, Staniszewska S, Griffiths F, et al. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care 2012; 24(1): 28–38PubMedCrossRef Mockford C, Staniszewska S, Griffiths F, et al. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care 2012; 24(1): 28–38PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Cashman SB, Adeky S, Allen III AJ, et al. The power and the promise: working with communities to analyze data, interpret findings, and get to outcomes. Am J Public Health 2008; 98(8): 1407–17PubMedCrossRef Cashman SB, Adeky S, Allen III AJ, et al. The power and the promise: working with communities to analyze data, interpret findings, and get to outcomes. Am J Public Health 2008; 98(8): 1407–17PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Shah SG, Robinson I. Benefits of and barriers to involving users in medical device technology development and evaluation. Int J Technol Assess 2007; 23(1): 131–7CrossRef Shah SG, Robinson I. Benefits of and barriers to involving users in medical device technology development and evaluation. Int J Technol Assess 2007; 23(1): 131–7CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Rowe A. The effect of involvement in participatory research on parent researchers in a Sure Start programme. Health Soc Care Comm 2006; 14(6): 465–73CrossRef Rowe A. The effect of involvement in participatory research on parent researchers in a Sure Start programme. Health Soc Care Comm 2006; 14(6): 465–73CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Hewlett S, de Wit M, Richards P, et al. Patients and professionals as research partners: challenges, practicalities and benefits. Arthritis Rheum 2006; 55(4): 676–80PubMedCrossRef Hewlett S, de Wit M, Richards P, et al. Patients and professionals as research partners: challenges, practicalities and benefits. Arthritis Rheum 2006; 55(4): 676–80PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Barnard A, Carter M, Britten N, et al. The PC11 report: an evaluation of consumer involvement in the London Primary Care Studies Programme. Exeter: Peninsula Medical School, 2005 Barnard A, Carter M, Britten N, et al. The PC11 report: an evaluation of consumer involvement in the London Primary Care Studies Programme. Exeter: Peninsula Medical School, 2005
24.
go back to reference Griffiths KM, Jorm AF, Christensen H. Academic consumer researchers: a bridge between consumers and researchers. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2004; 38(4): 191–6PubMedCrossRef Griffiths KM, Jorm AF, Christensen H. Academic consumer researchers: a bridge between consumers and researchers. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2004; 38(4): 191–6PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Minkler M, Fadem P, Perry M, et al. Ethical dilemmas in participatory action research: a case study from the disability community. Health Edu Behav 2002; 29(1): 14–29CrossRef Minkler M, Fadem P, Perry M, et al. Ethical dilemmas in participatory action research: a case study from the disability community. Health Edu Behav 2002; 29(1): 14–29CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Hanley B, Truesdale A, King A, et al. Involving consumers in designing, conducting, and interpreting randomised controlled trials: questionnaire survey. BMJ 2001; 322(7285): 519–23PubMedCrossRef Hanley B, Truesdale A, King A, et al. Involving consumers in designing, conducting, and interpreting randomised controlled trials: questionnaire survey. BMJ 2001; 322(7285): 519–23PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Lloyd M, Preston-Shoot M, Temple B, et al. Whose project is it anyway? Sharing and shaping research and development agenda. Disabil Soc 1996; 11(3): 301–16CrossRef Lloyd M, Preston-Shoot M, Temple B, et al. Whose project is it anyway? Sharing and shaping research and development agenda. Disabil Soc 1996; 11(3): 301–16CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Wyatt K, Carter M, Mahtani V, et al. The impact of consumer involvement in research: an evaluation of consumer involvement in the London Primary Care Studies Programme. Fam Pract 2008; 25(3): 154–61PubMedCrossRef Wyatt K, Carter M, Mahtani V, et al. The impact of consumer involvement in research: an evaluation of consumer involvement in the London Primary Care Studies Programme. Fam Pract 2008; 25(3): 154–61PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Plumb M, Price W, Kavanaugh-Lynch M. Funding community-based participatory research: lessons learned. J Interprof Care 2004; 18(4): 428–39PubMedCrossRef Plumb M, Price W, Kavanaugh-Lynch M. Funding community-based participatory research: lessons learned. J Interprof Care 2004; 18(4): 428–39PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Gibson A, et al. Moving forward: understanding the negative experiences and impacts of patient and public involvement in health service planning, development and evaluation. In: Barnes M, Cotterell P, editors. Critical perspectives on user involvement. Bristol: Policy Press, 2011 Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Gibson A, et al. Moving forward: understanding the negative experiences and impacts of patient and public involvement in health service planning, development and evaluation. In: Barnes M, Cotterell P, editors. Critical perspectives on user involvement. Bristol: Policy Press, 2011
31.
32.
go back to reference Beresford P, Campbell J. Disabled people, service users, user involvement and representation. Disabil Soc 1994; 9(3): 315–25CrossRef Beresford P, Campbell J. Disabled people, service users, user involvement and representation. Disabil Soc 1994; 9(3): 315–25CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Hanley B, Bradburn J, Gorin S, et al. Involving consumers in research and development in the NHS: briefing notes for researchers. Winchester: Consumers in NHS Research Support Unit, 2000 Hanley B, Bradburn J, Gorin S, et al. Involving consumers in research and development in the NHS: briefing notes for researchers. Winchester: Consumers in NHS Research Support Unit, 2000
34.
go back to reference Nicklin J, Cramp F, Kirwan J, et al. Collaboration with patients in the design of patient-reported outcome measures: capturing the experience of fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2010; 62(11): 1552–8CrossRef Nicklin J, Cramp F, Kirwan J, et al. Collaboration with patients in the design of patient-reported outcome measures: capturing the experience of fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2010; 62(11): 1552–8CrossRef
35.
go back to reference 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. Quality Life Res 2012; 21(1): 35–52CrossRef 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. Quality Life Res 2012; 21(1): 35–52CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Gandhi GY, Murad MH, Fujiyoshi A, et al. Patient-important outcomes in registered diabetes trials. JAMA 2008 Jun 4; 299(21): 2543–9PubMedCrossRef Gandhi GY, Murad MH, Fujiyoshi A, et al. Patient-important outcomes in registered diabetes trials. JAMA 2008 Jun 4; 299(21): 2543–9PubMedCrossRef
39.
go back to reference Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 2008 Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 2008
40.
go back to reference Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A, et al. Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ 2002 Jun 15; 324(7351): 1417PubMedCrossRef Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A, et al. Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ 2002 Jun 15; 324(7351): 1417PubMedCrossRef
41.
go back to reference McDowell I. Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. 3rd ed. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 2006 McDowell I. Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. 3rd ed. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 2006
42.
go back to reference Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Quality Life Res 2010; 19: 539–49CrossRef Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Quality Life Res 2010; 19: 539–49CrossRef
43.
go back to reference Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. Assessing health status and quality of life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Quality Life Res 2002; 11: 193–205CrossRef Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. Assessing health status and quality of life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Quality Life Res 2002; 11: 193–205CrossRef
44.
go back to reference Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60(1): 34–42PubMedCrossRef Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60(1): 34–42PubMedCrossRef
46.
go back to reference Ware L, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short Form-36 health survey (SF-36): conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473–83PubMedCrossRef Ware L, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short Form-36 health survey (SF-36): conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473–83PubMedCrossRef
47.
go back to reference Ziebland S, Fitzpatrick R, Jenkinson C. Tacit models of disability underlying health status instruments. Soc Sci Med 1993 Jul; 37(1): 69–75PubMedCrossRef Ziebland S, Fitzpatrick R, Jenkinson C. Tacit models of disability underlying health status instruments. Soc Sci Med 1993 Jul; 37(1): 69–75PubMedCrossRef
48.
go back to reference Kirwan JR, Hewlett SE, Heiberg T, et al. Incorporating the patient perspective into outcome assessment in rheumatoid arthritis — progress at OMERACT 7. J Rheumatol 2005 Nov; 32(11): 2250–6PubMed Kirwan JR, Hewlett SE, Heiberg T, et al. Incorporating the patient perspective into outcome assessment in rheumatoid arthritis — progress at OMERACT 7. J Rheumatol 2005 Nov; 32(11): 2250–6PubMed
49.
go back to reference Carr A, Hewlett S, Hughes R, et al. Rheumatology outcomes: the patient’s perspective. J Rheumatol 2003 Apr; 30(4): 880–3PubMed Carr A, Hewlett S, Hughes R, et al. Rheumatology outcomes: the patient’s perspective. J Rheumatol 2003 Apr; 30(4): 880–3PubMed
50.
go back to reference Collins D. Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Quality Life Res 2003; 12: 229–38CrossRef Collins D. Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Quality Life Res 2003; 12: 229–38CrossRef
51.
go back to reference Christodoulou C, Junghaenel DU, DeWalt DA, et al. Cognitive interviewing in the evaluation of fatigue items: results from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Quality Life Res 2008; 17: 1239–46CrossRef Christodoulou C, Junghaenel DU, DeWalt DA, et al. Cognitive interviewing in the evaluation of fatigue items: results from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Quality Life Res 2008; 17: 1239–46CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Patient and Public Involvement in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures
Evolution Not Revolution
Authors
Dr Sophie Staniszewska
Kirstie L. Haywood
Jo Brett
Liz Tutton
Publication date
01-06-2012
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Issue 2/2012
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Electronic ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/11597150-000000000-00000

Other articles of this Issue 2/2012

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 2/2012 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.