Patient and healthcare provider perceptions on using patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in routine clinical care: a systematic review of qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) assess quality-of-care from patients' perspectives. PREMs can be used to enhance patient-centered care and facilitate patient engagement in care. With increasing quality improvement studies in clinical practice, the use of PREMs has surged. As a result, knowledge about stakeholder experiences of using PREMs to assess quality of care across diverse clinical settings is needed to inform PREM implementation efforts. To address this, this review examines the qualitative literature on patient and healthcare provider experiences of using PREMs in clinical practice. METHODS: Medline, Embase and PsycInfo were systematically searched from inception to May 2021. Additional searching of reference lists for all included articles and relevant review articles were performed. Retrieved articles were screened for eligibility by one reviewer and 25% cross-checked by a second reviewer across all stages of the review. Full texts meeting eligibility criteria were appraised against the COREQ checklist for quality assessment and thematic analysis was used to analyze textual data extracted from the results. RESULTS: Electronic searches identified 2683 records, of which 20 studies met eligibility criteria. Extracted data were synthesized into six themes: facilitators to PREM implementation; barriers to PREM implementation; healthcare providers' perspectives towards using PREMs; patients' perspectives towards using PREMs; advantages of using PREMs in clinical practice; limitations and practical considerations to reduce resistance of PREM usage. The primary factors facilitating and impeding the use of PREMs include organizational-, staff- and patient-related factors. CONCLUSION: Results can be used to guide the usage and implementation of PREMs in clinical settings by addressing the identified barriers and building on the perceived benefits to encourage adoption of PREMs. Results around facilitators to PREM implementation and practical considerations could also promote appropriate use of PREMs by healthcare providers, helping to improve practice and the quality of care based on patient feedback.

A systematic review of body image measures for people diagnosed with head and neck cancer (HNC).

PURPOSE: Head and neck cancer (HNC) is a relatively common cancer which causes a significant health burden, impacting individuals physically and psychologically. HNC treatment may result in facial disfigurement, eating and communication difficulties, and body image disturbances. We aimed to (1) identify HNC-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess body image, (2) evaluate their conceptual coverage, (3) appraise their development process and psychometric properties, and (4) determine appropriate body image PROM(s) for use in the HNC setting. METHODS: Online databases were searched (July 2007-July 2017) for studies that assessed body image in patients with HNC. Studies were screened for eligibility. In addition, we searched three PROM databases for relevant PROMs. From available body image frameworks, we compiled a conceptual schema consisting of 18 clinically relevant body image issues important in the HNC setting, against which PROMs were assessed. Selected measures were appraised for psychometric characteristics, content, and readability. RESULTS: A total of 245 records were retrieved. 18 studies with PROMs met our inclusion criteria, reporting eight PROMs. The PROM databases searched yielded 62 measures. After screening, eleven measures were short-listed and appraised. The Derriford Appearance Scale (DAS)-59, DAS-24, and body image scale (BIS) cover > 55% of issues within the body image conceptual schema; were developed based on literature, patient interviews, and clinician opinions; and have evidence of internal consistency (Cronbach alpha > 0.7), validity, and responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the DAS-24 and BIS as having adequate coverage of HNC-related issues, and suitable for use in future research.

Trials with proxy-reported outcomes registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR).

AIMS: A proxy is someone other than a patient who reports a patient's outcomes as if they are the patient. Due to known discordance with patient reports, proxies are often not recommended in clinical trials; however, proxies may be needed in certain research contexts. We aimed to identify and describe trials registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) with proxy-reported endpoints. METHODS: ANZCTR was systematically searched from inception (2005) to 31 March 2017 for trials with proxy-reported endpoints. Primary and secondary endpoints for each trial retrieved by the search were individually coded (proxy-reported: yes/no), and trials with confirmed proxy-reported endpoints were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Of 13,666 registered trials, 469 (3.4%) included a proxy-reported endpoint (867 individual proxy-reported endpoints in total: 62% family member proxy, 22% health professional). Proxy endpoint inclusion did not significantly increase over time (r = 0.18, p = 0.59). Mental health (11.5%), stroke (10.3%) and neurological (8.3%) trials had the highest proportion of trials using proxies. Of the 469 trials, 123 (26.2%) studies involved paediatric patients. DISCUSSION: Proxy-reported endpoints are included in a small but notable number of studies, which may indicate other types of outcomes are used for patients unable to self-report, or that these patients are under-researched.