Patient-Reported Outcome Measures as an Intervention: A Comprehensive Overview of Systematic Reviews on the Effects of Feedback.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have emerged as a promising approach to involve patients in their treatment process. Beyond serving as outcome measures, PROMs can be applied to provide feedback to healthcare providers and patients, thereby offering valuable insights that can improve health outcomes and care processes. This overview offers a comprehensive synthesis of the effects of PROM feedback, contributing to the evidence-based discussion on PROMs' potential to enhance patient care. METHODS: Following Cochrane Collaboration recommendations, this overview included literature reviews across diverse treatment areas, investigating the impact of PROM feedback on patient health outcomes (including quality of life, symptoms, or survival) and care process outcomes (including communication, symptom identification, or clinical practice). The methodological quality of the evidence was assessed with a modified version of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2, and the potential overlap of primary studies was quantified. Results were narratively synthesized. RESULTS: Forty reviews grouped into 4 categories of treatment areas were included. Overall, their methodological quality was low. The overall overlap of primary studies was 2.2%, reaching up to 15.7% within specific treatment areas. The results indicate that PROM feedback may enhance the quality-of-care processes, whereas its effects on patient health outcomes remained less conclusive. CONCLUSIONS: PROM feedback positively influences the interaction between physicians and patients across the included treatment areas. Further research is needed to comprehend the trickle-down effects of PROM feedback and how to enhance its potential in yielding health benefits for patients.

Who Benefits From Hip Arthroplasty or Knee Arthroplasty? Preoperative Patient-reported Outcome Thresholds Predict Meaningful Improvement.

BACKGROUND: Hip arthroplasty (HA) and knee arthroplasty (KA) are high-volume procedures. However, there is a debate about the quality of indication; that is, whether surgery is truly indicated in all patients. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) may be used to determine preoperative thresholds to differentiate patients who will likely benefit from surgery from those who will not. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What were the minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) for three commonly used PROMs in a large population of patients undergoing HA or KA treated in a general orthopaedic practice? (2) Do patients who reach the MCID differ in important ways from those who do not? (3) What preoperative PROM score thresholds best distinguish patients who achieve a meaningful improvement 12 months postsurgery from those who do not? (4) Do patients with preoperative PROM scores below thresholds still experience gains after surgery? METHODS: Between October 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020, 4182 patients undergoing HA and 3645 patients undergoing KA agreed to be part of the PROMoting Quality study and were hence included by study nurses in one of nine participating German hospitals. From a selected group of 1843 patients with HA and 1546 with KA, we derived MCIDs using the anchor-based change difference method to determine meaningful improvements. Second, we estimated which preoperative PROM score thresholds best distinguish patients who achieve an MCID from those who do not, using the preoperative PROM scores that maximized the Youden index. PROMs were Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function short form (HOOS-PS) (scored 0 to 100 points; lower indicates better health), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function short form (KOOS-PS) (scored 0 to 100 points; lower indicates better health), EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5L) (scored -0.661 to 1 points; higher indicates better health), and a 10-point VAS for pain (perceived pain in the joint under consideration for surgery within the past 7 days) (scored 0 to 10 points; lower indicates better health). The performance of derived thresholds is reported using the Youden index, sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, geometric mean as a measure of central tendency, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: MCIDs for the EQ-5D-5L were 0.2 for HA and 0.2 for KA, with a maximum of 1 point, where higher values represented better health-related quality of life. For the pain scale, they were -0.9 for HA and -0.7 for KA, of 10 points (maximum), where lower scores represent lower pain. For the HOOS-PS, the MCID was -10, and for the KOOS-PS it was -5 of 100 points, where lower scores represent better functioning. Patients who reached the MCID differed from patients who did not reach the MCID with respect to baseline PROM scores across the evaluated PROMs and for both HA and KA. Patients who reached an MCID versus those who did not also differed regarding other aspects including education and comorbidities, but this was not consistent across PROMs and arthroplasty type. Preoperative PROM score thresholds for HA were 0.7 for EQ-5D-5L (Youden index: 0.55), 42 for HOOS-PS (Youden index: 0.27), and 3.5 for the pain scale (Youden index: 0.47). For KA, the thresholds were 0.6 for EQ-5D-5L (Youden index: 0.57), 39 for KOOS-PS (Youden index: 0.25), and 6.5 for the pain scale (Youden index: 0.40). A higher Youden index for EQ-5D-5L than for the other PROMs indicates that the thresholds for EQ-5D-5L were better for distinguishing patients who reached a meaningful improvement from those who did not. Patients who did not reach the thresholds could still achieve MCIDs, especially for functionality and the pain scale. CONCLUSION: We found that patients who experienced meaningful improvements (MCIDs) mainly differed from those who did not regarding their preoperative PROM scores. We further identified that patients undergoing HA or KA with a score above 0.7 or 0.6, respectively, on the EQ-5D-5L, below 42 or 39 on the HOOS-PS or KOOS-PS, or below 3.5 or 6.5 on a 10-point joint-specific pain scale presurgery had no meaningful benefit from surgery. The thresholds can support clinical decision-making. For example, when thresholds indicate that a meaningful improvement is not likely to be achieved after surgery, other treatment options may be prioritized. Although the thresholds can be used as support, patient preferences and medical expertise must supplement the decision. Future studies might evaluate the utility of using these thresholds in practice, examine how different thresholds can be combined as a multidimensional decision tool, and derive presurgery thresholds based on additional PROMs used in practice. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Preoperative PROM score thresholds in this study will support clinicians in decision-making through objective measures that can improve the quality of the recommendation for surgery.

Gender health gap pre- and post-joint arthroplasty: identifying affected patient-reported health domains.

BACKGROUND: As patient-reported outcomes (PROs) gain prominence in hip and knee arthroplasty (HA and KA), studies indicate PRO variations between genders. Research on the specific health domains particularly impacted is lacking. Hence, we aim to quantify the gender health gap in PROs for HA/KA patients, differentiating between general health, health-related quality of life (HrQoL), physical functioning, pain, fatigue, and depression. METHODS: The study included 3,693 HA patients (1,627 men, 2,066 women) and 3,110 KA patients (1,430 men, 1,680 women) receiving surgery between 2020 to 2021 in nine German hospitals, followed up until March 2022. Questionnaires used were: EQ-VAS, EQ-5D-5L, HOOS-PS, KOOS-PS, PROMIS-F-SF, PROMIS-D-SF, and a joint-specific numeric pain scale. PROs at admission, discharge, 12-months post-surgery, and the change from admission to 12-months (PRO-improvement) were compared by gender, tested for differences, and assessed using multivariate linear regressions. To enable comparability, PROs were transformed into z-scores (standard deviations from the mean). RESULTS: Observed differences between genders were small in all health domains and differences reduced over time. Men reported significantly better health versus women pre-HA (KA), with a difference of 0.252 (0.224) standard deviations from the mean for pain, 0.353 (0.243) for fatigue (PROMIS-F-SF), 0.327 (0.310) for depression (PROMIS-D-SF), 0.336 (0.273) for functionality (H/KOOS-PS), 0.177 (0.186) for general health (EQ-VAS) and 0.266 (0.196) for HrQoL (EQ-5D-5L). At discharge, the gender health gap reduced and even disappeared for some health dimensions since women improved in health to a greater extent than men. No gender health gap was observed in most PRO-improvements and at month 12. CONCLUSIONS: Men experiencing slightly better health than women in all health dimensions before surgery while experiencing similar health benefits 12-months post-surgery, might be an indicator of men receiving surgery inappropriately early, women unnecessarily late or both. As studies often investigate the PRO-improvement, they miss pre-surgery gender differences, which could be an important target for improvement initiatives in patient-centric care. Moreover, future research on cutoffs for meaningful between-group PRO differences per measurement time would aid the interpretation of gender health disparities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Register for Clinical Trials, DRKS00019916, 26 November 2019.

What is the association between gender and self-perceived health status when controlling for disease-specific conditions? A retrospective data analysis of pre- and post-operative EQ-5D-5L differences in total hip and knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The self-perceived health status of patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) might differ post-operatively due to gender, age, or comorbidities. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) such as the EQ-5D-5L measure the self-perceived health status. This study investigates whether the index score of the EQ-5D-5L is a valid tool for interpreting gender differences in outcomes for patients undergoing THA and TKA. METHODS: Routine and PROM-data of elective primary THA or TKA patients in two German hospitals between 2016 and 2018 were analyzed. Univariate analysis with Pearson's chi-square was conducted to identify control variables for gender. To quantify the association between gender and the EQ-5D-5L dimensions, a cumulative odds ordinal logistic regression with proportional odds was conducted. RESULTS: Two thousand three hundred sixty-eight​​ THA patients (m = 978; f = 1390) and 1629 TKA patients (m = 715; f = 914) were considered. The regression analysis of the individual EQ-5D-5L dimensions showed that female gender was significantly associated with better self-care (THA and TKA) and better post-operative mobility (THA). In contrast, male gender was significantly associated with less pain/discomfort (TKA) and less anxiety/depression (THA) pre-surgery and 3-months post-surgery. CONCLUSION: Our results confirmed that the self-perceived health status improved after surgery. However, due to the different associations of gender to the individual dimensions of the EQ-5D-5L, the weighted index score clouds the comparability between patients with different gender undergoing THA or TKA. Therefore, we argue to use the individual five dimensions for health status analysis, to reveal relevant additional information.

Patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) can fill out standardized questionnaires pre- and post-surgery, such as the EQ-5D-5L, to measure the improvement in the self-perceived health status. The EQ-5D-5L includes mobility, self-care, usual activity, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. We do not know whether male and female patients experience the same improvement in the dimensions or whether significant differences exist. Currently, only index scores of the EQ-5D-5L are used for the comparison of pre- and post-operative health status. However, due to the questionnaire's weighted composition, relevant changes in individual dimensions might be easily missed. Thus, we investigated whether significant differences between gender and the EQ-5D-5L dimensions in patients undergoing TKA and TKA are observable. We found that female patients reported significantly better scores in self-care (THA and TKA) and post-operative mobility (THA). In contrast, male gender was significantly associated with less pain/discomfort (TKA) and less anxiety/depression (THA) pre-surgery and 3-months post-surgery. The EQ-5D-5L's weighted index score, however, does not directly represent these differences. Therefore, we argue to use the individual five dimensions for health status analysis, as relevant additional information on improvement over time would otherwise be missed.

Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Monitoring to Improve Quality of Life After Joint Replacement: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Although remote patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) monitoring has shown promising results in cancer care, there is a lack of research on PROM monitoring in orthopedics. Objective: To determine whether PROM monitoring can improve health outcomes for patients with joint replacement compared with the standard of care. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 2-group, patient-level randomized clinical trial (PROMoting Quality) across 9 German hospitals recruited patients aged 18 years or older with primary hip or knee replacement from October 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020, with follow-up until March 31, 2022. Interventions: Intervention and control groups received the standard of care and PROMs at hospital admission, discharge, and 12 months after surgery. In addition, the intervention group received PROMs at 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery. Based on prespecified PROM score thresholds, at these times, an automated alert signaled critical recovery paths to hospital study nurses. On notification, study nurses contacted patients and referred them to their physicians if necessary. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified outcomes were the mean change in PROM scores (European Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level version [EQ-5D-5L; range, -0.661 to 1.0, with higher values indicating higher levels of health-related quality of life (HRQOL)], European Quality of Life Visual Analogue Scale [EQ-VAS; range, 0-100, with higher values indicating higher levels of HRQOL], Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Shortform [HOOS-PS; range, 0-100, with lower values indicating lower physical impairment] or Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Shortform [KOOS-PS; range, 0-100, with lower values indicating lower physical impairment], Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS]-fatigue [range, 33.7-75.8, with lower values indicating lower levels of fatigue], and PROMIS-depression [range, 41-79.4, with lower values indicating lower levels of depression]) from baseline to 12 months after surgery. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: The study included 3697 patients with hip replacement (mean [SD] age, 65.8 [10.6] years; 2065 women [55.9%]) and 3110 patients with knee replacement (mean [SD] age, 66.0 [9.2] years; 1669 women [53.7%]). Exploratory analyses showed significantly better health outcomes in the intervention group on all PROMs except the EQ-5D-5L among patients with hip replacement, with a 2.10-point increase on the EQ-VAS in the intervention group compared with the control group (HOOS-PS, -1.86 points; PROMIS-fatigue, -0.69 points; PROMIS-depression, -0.57 points). Patients in the intervention group with knee replacement had a 1.24-point increase on the EQ-VAS, as well as significantly better scores on the KOOS-PS (-0.99 points) and PROMIS-fatigue (-0.84 points) compared with the control group. Mixed-effect models showed a significant difference in improvement on the EQ-VAS (hip replacement: effect estimate [EE], 1.66 [95% CI, 0.58-2.74]; knee replacement: EE, 1.71 [95% CI, 0.53-2.90]) and PROMIS-fatigue (hip replacement: EE, -0.65 [95% CI, -1.12 to -0.18]; knee replacement: EE, -0.71 [95% CI, -1.23 to -0.20]). The PROMIS-depression score was significantly reduced in the hip replacement group (EE, -0.60 [95% CI, -1.01 to -0.18]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the PROM-based monitoring intervention led to a small improvement in HRQOL and fatigue among patients with hip or knee replacement, as well as in depression among patients with hip replacement. Trial registration: Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien ID: DRKS00019916.

Exploring treatment effect heterogeneity of a PROMs alert intervention in knee and hip arthroplasty patients: A causal forest application.

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) experience an uptake in use for hip (HA) and knee arthroplasty (KA) patients. As they may be used for patient monitoring interventions, it remains unclear whether their use in HA/KA patients is effective, and which patient groups benefit the most. Nonetheless, knowledge about treatment effect heterogeneity is crucial for decision makers to target interventions towards specific subgroups that benefit to a greater extend. Therefore, we evaluate the treatment effect heterogeneity of a remote PROM monitoring intervention that includes ∼8000 HA/KA patients from a randomized controlled trial conducted in nine German hospitals. The study setting gave us the unique opportunity to apply a causal forest, a recently developed machine learning method, to explore treatment effect heterogeneity of the intervention. We found that among both HA and KA patients, the intervention was especially effective for patients that were female, >65 years of age, had a blood pressure disease, were not working, reported no backpain and were adherent. When transferring the study design into standard care, policy makers should make use of the knowledge obtained in this study and allocate the treatment towards subgroups for which the treatment is especially effective.

Toward System-Wide Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Framework for Countries, States, and Regions.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop a framework facilitating (1) the maturity assessment of healthcare systems regarding patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) implementation and (2) the comparison of different healthcare systems' PROM implementation levels to guide discussions and derive lessons for regional, state-level, and national PROM initiatives. METHODS: Guided by the grounded theory methodology, a PROM healthcare system implementation framework was developed following multiple steps. Based on interviews with 28 experts from 12 countries and a literature review, a framework was drafted and refined through 29 additional validation interviews. RESULTS: The resulting framework comprises 5 implementation stages along 7 dimensions. Implementation stages range from "first experimentation" to "system-wide adoption and a vibrant ecosystem." The dimensions are grouped into patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement and PRO utilization, the former with the dimensions "scope and condition coverage," "metric and process standardization," and "tools and information technology-based solutions" and the latter with "patient empowerment and clinical decision support," "reporting and quality improvement," and "rewarding and contracting." The "culture and stakeholder involvement" dimension connects both groups. Although a concerted implementation approach across dimensions can be observed in advanced countries, others show a more uneven adoption. CONCLUSIONS: The framework and its preliminary application to different healthcare systems demonstrate (1) the importance of coherent progress across complementing dimensions and (2) the relevance of PROM integration across clinical specialties and care sectors to strengthen patient-centered care. Overall, the framework can facilitate dialogues between stakeholders to analyze the current PROM implementation status and strategies to advance it.

Nudging New York: adaptive models and the limits of behavioral interventions to reduce no-shows and health inequalities.

BACKGROUND: Missed healthcare appointments (no-shows) are costly and operationally inefficient for health systems. No-show rates are particularly high for vulnerable populations, even though these populations often require additional care. Few studies on no-show behavior or potential interventions exist specifically for Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), which care for over 24 million disadvantaged individuals in the United States. The purpose of this study is to identify predictors of no-show behavior and to analyze the effects of a reminder intervention in urban FQHCs in order to design effective policy solutions to a protracted issue in healthcare. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study using electronic medical record data from 11 facilities belonging to a New York City-based FQHC network between June 2017 to April 2018. This data includes 53,149 visits for 41,495 unique patients. Seven hierarchical generalized linear models and generalized additive models were used to predict no-shows, and multiple regression models evaluated the effectiveness of a reminder. All analyses were conducted in R. RESULTS: The strongest predictor of no-show rates in FQHCs is whether or not patients are assigned to empaneled providers (z = - 91.45, p < 10- 10), followed by lead time for appointments (z = 23.87, p < 10- 10). These effects were fairly stable across facilities. The reminder had minimal effects on no-show rates overall (No show rate before: 41.6%, after: 42.1%). For individuals with appointments before and after the reminder, there was a small decrease in no-shows of 2%. CONCLUSIONS: The limited effects of the reminder intervention suggest the need for more personalized behavioral interventions to reduce no-shows. We recommend that these begin with increasing the use of empaneled providers for preventive care appointments and reducing the lag time between setting the appointment and the actual date of the appointment, at least for individuals with a high rate of no-show. By complementing these with low-intensity, low-cost behavioral interventions, we would expect greater impacts for improved access to care, contributing to the well-being of vulnerable populations.