Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires that collect health outcomes directly from the people who experience them. This review critically synthesizes information on generic and selected condition-specific PROMs to describe trends and contemporary issues regarding their development, validation and application. METHODS: We reviewed academic and grey literature on validated PROMs by searching databases, prominent websites, Google Scholar and Google Search. The identification of condition-specific PROMs was limited to common conditions and those with a high burden of disease (eg cancers, cardiovascular disorders). Trends and contemporary issues in the development, validation and application of PROMs were critically evaluated. RESULTS: The search yielded 315 generic and condition-specific PROMs. The largest numbers of measures were identified for generic PROMs, musculoskeletal conditions and cancers. The earliest published PROMs were in mental health-related conditions. The number of PROMs grew substantially between 1980s and 2000s but slowed more recently. The number of publications discussing PROMs continues to increase. Issues identified include the use of computer-adaptive testing and increasing concerns about the appropriateness of using PROMs developed and validated for specific purposes (eg research) for other reasons (eg clinical decision making). CONCLUSIONS: The term PROM is a relatively new designation for a range of measures that have existed since at least the 1960s. Although literature on PROMs continues to expand, challenges remain in selecting reliable and valid tools that are fit-for-purpose from the many existing instruments. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Consumers were not directly involved in this review; however, its outcome will be used in programmes that engage and partner with consumers.

Hepatitis C viral infection and imprisonment among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous people who inject drugs.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: An understanding of the relationship between hepatitis C viral (HCV) infection and contextual factors such as imprisonment may contribute to the development of targeted treatment and prevention programs. We examine the associations of imprisonment and drug dependence with lifetime exposure to HCV, and whether these associations differ for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous people who inject drugs. DESIGN AND METHODS: Respondent-driven sampling was used in major cities and 'peer recruitment' in regional towns of Queensland to obtain a community sample of people who injected drugs, which comprised 243 Indigenous and 227 non-Indigenous participants who had ever been tested for HCV. Data are cross-sectional. Two binary Poisson models were developed to examine associations for variables relating to imprisonment, Indigeneity and drug use history. RESULTS: Sharing needles and syringes in prison (adjusted risk ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.53) remained significantly associated with HCV infection after adjustment for Indigeneity, injecting drug use history and drug dependence. Opioid dependence and concurrent dependence on opioids and methamphetamine was also independently associated with HCV infection. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Sharing needles and syringes in prison is linked with HCV infection, for both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous people who inject drugs. Further development of treatment and prevention programs in prisons is required, with consideration of the role of opioid and methamphetamine dependence in HCV exposure.

Patterns of drug dependence in a Queensland (Australia) sample of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people who inject drugs.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Despite over-representation of Indigenous Australians in sentinel studies of injecting drug use, little is known about relevant patterns of drug use and dependence. This study compares drug dependence and possible contributing factors in Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians who inject drugs. DESIGN AND METHODS: Respondent-driven sampling was used in major cities and 'peer recruitment' in regional towns of Queensland to obtain a community sample of Indigenous (n = 282) and non-Indigenous (n = 267) injectors. Data are cross sectional. Multinomial models were developed for each group to examine types of dependence on injected drugs (no dependence, methamphetamine-dependent only, opioid-dependent only, dependent on methamphetamine and opioids). RESULTS: Around one-fifth of Indigenous and non-Indigenous injectors were dependent on both methamphetamine and opioids in the previous 12 months. Psychological distress was associated with dual dependence on these drugs for Indigenous [adjusted relative risk (ARR) 4.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.08-11.34] and non-Indigenous (ARR 4.14, 95% CI 1.59-10.78) participants. Unemployment (ARR 8.98, 95% CI 2.25-35.82) and repeated (> once) incarceration as an adult (ARR 3.78, 95% CI 1.43-9.97) were associated with dual dependence for Indigenous participants only. Indigenous participants had high rates of alcohol dependence, except for those dependent on opioids only. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The drug dependence patterns of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people who inject drugs were similar, including the proportions dependent on both methamphetamine and opioids. However, for Indigenous injectors, there was a stronger association between drug dependence and contextual factors such as unemployment and incarceration. Expansion of treatment options and community-level programs may be required. [Smirnov A, Kemp R, Ward J, Henderson S, Williams S, Dev A, Najman J M. Patterns of drug dependence in a Queensland (Australia) sample of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people who inject drugs. Drug Alcohol Rev 2016;35:611-619].