Dataset Information

A qualitative study to identify thematic areas for HIV related patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and patient-reported experience measures (PREM).

ABSTRACT:

Background

The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and patient-reported experience measures (PREM) provide health providers with valuable feedback on how to improve clinical care and patient outcomes. This paper describes a qualitative study that was conducted to learn about factors influencing the well-being of people living with HIV (PLHIV) in Finland. The findings will be used to develop themes for HIV-specific PROM and PREM questions.

Methods

PROMs and PREMs were developed by the Finnish Institute for Health (THL) as a part of a project to develop a national quality-of-care registry for HIV. The study aimed to identify issues and concerns among people living with HIV (PLHIV) that influence their well-being (PROMs) and their experiences in the healthcare system (PREMs). The data were collected through face-to-face in-depth interviews and focus group discussions based on open-ended and semi-structured questions. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

The assessment identified the following PROMs of concern: psychological well-being, concerns about stigma, physical health, social well-being, sexual well-being, medication uptake, managing other medications with antiretrovirals (ARVs), and growing old. The assessment identified the following PREMs: helping patients understand their own health status, proving an opportunity for patients to discuss physical health, psychological and sexual well-being, supporting the uptake of ARVs, assisting patients with medication use, showing compassion towards patients, and empowering patients against stigma.

Conclusion

These findings of the study can be used to develop domain-specific PROM and PREM questions for the national HIV quality care register.

SUBMITTER: Lohiniva AL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10151440 | biostudies-literature | 2023 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A qualitative study to identify thematic areas for HIV related patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and patient-reported experience measures (PREM).

Lohiniva Anna-Leena AL Isosomppi Sanna S Pasanen Sini S Sutinen Jussi J

Journal of patient-reported outcomes 20230501 1

<h4>Background</h4>The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and patient-reported experience measures (PREM) provide health providers with valuable feedback on how to improve clinical care and patient outcomes. This paper describes a qualitative study that was conducted to learn about factors influencing the well-being of people living with HIV (PLHIV) in Finland. The findings will be used to develop themes for HIV-specific PROM and PREM questions.<h4>Methods</h4>PROMs and PREMs were d ...[more]

PMID: 37126134

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionHome respiratory therapies (HRT) are treatments aimed at diseases that are generally chronic and that have a significant impact on the biopsychosocial aspects of patients' lives. No validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and patient-reported experience measures (PREM) are available to assess the impact of these treatments on quality of life (QoL) in HRT. The objective of this work was to identify and validate PROMs and PREMs in HRT.MethodsThe process was divided into 5 stages: review of the literature, patient interviews, qualitative validation workshops, cognitive validation, and psychometric validation. For the identification of PROM and PREM, consensus techniques were used with patients, caregivers, specialist doctors, and therapists. The evaluation was based on items that were collected from questionnaires on diseases commonly treated with HRT techniques in clinical practice. The psychometric validation was analyzed by a team of psychologists trained in the methodology.ResultsFor the literature review, 20 articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After patient interviews, the research team selected 40 PROM items for each treatment from the total of 51 PROM questionnaires found for respiratory diseases. For the validation workshops, the list of selected items had to be reduced to a final number of 15. After the workshops, 8 preliminary questionnaires were drawn up (4 PROMs and 4 PREMs). A second validation round was then held and the questionnaires were modified with the list of PREMs and PROMs resulting from the whole process. The psychometric validation of PROM and PREM questionnaires for each of the therapies consisted of an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Overall, 1299 questionnaires answered by 650 patients were obtained.ConclusionsA preliminary set of PREMs and PROMs associated with HRT with good reliability indexes was developed: Cronbach's alpha and Composite Reliability Index (CRI). These are questionnaires with a 5-point Likert scale that the patient can quickly complete and which provide excellent scores for acceptability, reliability, and validity in psychometric tests. This may offer HRT units a robust basis for better monitoring of patient outcomes and needs and improve healthcare quality and clinical outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundPatient centeredness is an integral part of the quality of care. Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are assumed to be an appropriate tool to assess patient-centredness. An evaluation of German-speaking PREMs is lacking.ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review and qualitative analysis of psychometric measurement qualities of German-language PREMs using for the first time a comprehensive framework of patient centredness.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in Medline, PsycInfo, CINHAL, Embase, Cochrane database (last search 9th November 2021) for studies describing generic, surgery- or cancer care-specific PREMs. All questionnaires that were developed in or translated into German were included. The content of the included PREMs was evaluated using a comprehensive framework of patient centredness covering 16 domains. Baseline data of all PREM studies were extracted by two independent reviewers. Psychometric measurement qualities of the PREMs were assessed using current COSMIN guidelines.ResultsAfter removal of duplicates 3,457 abstracts were screened, of which 3,345 were excluded. The remaining 112 articles contained 51 PREMs, of which 12 were either developed in (4 PREMs) or translated into German (8 PREMs). Eight PREMs were generic (NORPEQ, PPE-15, PEACS, HCAHPS, QPPS, DUQUE, PEQ-G, Schoenfelder et al.), 4 cancer care-specific (EORTC IN-PATSAT32, PSCC-G, Danish National Cancer Questionnaire, SCCC) and none was surgery-specific. None of the PREMs covered all domains of patient-centeredness. Overall rating of structural validity was adequate only for PEACS and HCAHPS. High ratings for internal consistency were given for NORPEQ, Schoenfelder et al., PSCC-G and the SCCC. Cross-cultural validity for translated questionnaires was adequate only for the PSCC-G, while reliability was adequately assessed only for the EORTC IN-PATSAT32. Due to a lack of measurement gold standard and minimal important change, criterion validity and measurement invariance could not be assessed for any of the PREMs.ConclusionThis is the first systematic review using a comprehensive framework of patient centredness and shows that none of the included PREMs, even those translated from other languages into German, cover all aspects of patient centredness. Furthermore, all included PREMS show deficits in the results or evaluation of psychometric measurement properties. Nonetheless, based on the results, the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 and PSCC-G can be recommended for use in cancer patients in the German-language region, while the German versions of the HCAHPS, NORPEQ, PPE-15 and PEACS can be recommended as generic PREMs.Trial registrationRegistration. PROSPERO CRD42021276827.

Project description:BackgroundWith the rise of digital health technologies and telemedicine, the need for evidence-based evaluation is growing. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are recommended as an essential part of the evaluation of telemedicine. For the first time, a systematic review has been conducted to investigate the use of PROMs and PREMs in the evaluation studies of telemedicine covering all application types and medical purposes.ObjectiveThis study investigates the following research questions: in which scenarios are PROMs and PREMs collected for evaluation purposes, which PROM and PREM outcome domains have been covered and how often, which outcome measurement instruments have been used and how often, does the selection and quantity of PROMs and PREMs differ between study types and application types, and has the use of PROMs and PREMs changed over time.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search of the MEDLINE and Embase databases and included studies published from inception until April 2, 2020. We included studies evaluating telemedicine with patients as the main users; these studies reported PROMs and PREMs within randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, noncontrolled trials, and feasibility trials in English and German.ResultsOf the identified 2671 studies, 303 (11.34%) were included; of the 303 studies, 67 (22.1%) were feasibility studies, 70 (23.1%) were noncontrolled trials, 20 (6.6%) were controlled trials, and 146 (48.2%) were randomized controlled trials. Health-related quality of life (n=310; mean 1.02, SD 1.05), emotional function (n=244; mean 0.81, SD 1.18), and adherence (n=103; mean 0.34, SD 0.53) were the most frequently assessed outcome domains. Self-developed PROMs were used in 21.4% (65/303) of the studies, and self-developed PREMs were used in 22.3% (68/303). PROMs (n=884) were assessed more frequently than PREMs (n=234). As the evidence level of the studies increased, the number of PROMs also increased (τ=-0.45), and the number of PREMs decreased (τ=0.35). Since 2000, not only has the number of studies using PROMs and PREMs increased, but the level of evidence and the number of outcome measurement instruments used have also increased, with the number of PREMs permanently remaining at a lower level.ConclusionsThere have been increasingly more studies, particularly high-evidence studies, which use PROMs and PREMs to evaluate telemedicine. PROMs have been used more frequently than PREMs. With the increasing maturity stage of telemedicine applications and higher evidence level, the use of PROMs increased in line with the recommendations of evaluation guidelines. Health-related quality of life and emotional function were measured in almost all the studies. Simultaneously, health literacy as a precondition for using the application adequately, alongside proper training and guidance, has rarely been reported. Further efforts should be pursued to standardize PROM and PREM collection in evaluation studies of telemedicine.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in clinical quality registries, for people with cutaneous melanoma, to inform a new Australian Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry; and describe opportunities and challenges of routine PROM/PREM collection, especially in primary care.DesignSystematic review.Primary and secondary outcome measuresWhich PROMs and PREMs are used in clinical quality registries for people with cutaneous melanoma, how they are collected, frequency of collection, participant recruitment methods and funding models for each registry.Results1134 studies were identified from MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects databases and TUFTS Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, alongside grey literature, from database inception to 5th February 2020. Following screening, 14 studies were included, identifying four relevant registries: Dutch Melanoma Registry, Adelphi Real-World Disease-Specific Programme (Melanoma), Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship Registry, and Cancer Experience Registry. These used seven PROMs: EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Functional Assessment of Cancer-General (FACT-G) and FACT-Melanoma (FACT-M), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cancer 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), Fatigue Assessment Scale Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Information System-29 and one PREM; EORTC QLQ-Information Module 26. PROMs/PREMs in registries were reported to improve transparency of care; facilitate clinical auditing for quality assessment; enable cost-effectiveness analyses and create large-scale research platforms. Challenges included resource burden for data entry and potential collection bias toward younger, more affluent respondents. Feedback from patients with melanoma highlighted the relevance of PROMs/PREMs in assessing patient outcomes and patient experiences.ConclusionsClinical registries indicate PROMs/PREMs for melanoma care can be incorporated and address important gaps, however cost and collection bias may limit generalisability.Prospero registration numberCRD42018086737.

Project description:ContextPatient-reported experience measures (PREMs) provide important insights into the challenges experienced when living with a chronic condition. Although patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) exist in audiology, there are no validated PREMs to help clinicians understand patient perspectives and identify areas where patients may need additional support or interventions.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to develop and evaluate content for the new 'My Hearing PREM', which captures lived experiences of hearing loss from patients' perspectives.DesignMy Hearing PREM was developed and tested in two key phases. Phase 1 involved generating the PREM prototype in accordance with our conceptual model of the lived experience of hearing loss. In Phase 2, cognitive interviews were conducted with adults with hearing loss to appraise the content of the PREM (relevance, clarity, acceptability and comprehensiveness) and assess its respondent burden. Key stakeholders (e.g., adults with hearing loss, patient and public representatives, clinicians and researchers) were consulted throughout Phases 1 and 2 to review and refine the PREM. Interview data were analysed using thematic analysis.Setting and participantsSixteen participants (aged 16 years and over) with hearing loss took part in cognitive interviews, recruited from UK audiology departments and non-clinical settings (e.g., lip-reading classes, national charity links and social media).ResultsMost PREM items were found to be relevant, clear, acceptable and comprehensive. Several problems were identified, including items not working well with the response scale options, irrelevant questions and a lack of clarity about terms (e.g., healthcare professionals) and whether questions should be answered based on the use of hearing aids (or not). The PREM was amended accordingly.ConclusionsCurrently, no hearing loss-specific PREMs exist in audiology. Involving multiple stakeholders in the development of the PREM helped to ensure that the items were relevant, clear, acceptable and comprehensive. The PREM is undergoing further evaluation and refinement in preparation for investigating the feasibility of implementing it into clinical practice.Patient or public contributionOngoing Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) with key groups (South Asian Women's groups, young people's groups, learning disability networks and student populations) was integral to the study. PPIE members reviewed patient information sheets and consent forms, advised on recruitment, reviewed the interview schedule and checked coding and analysis procedures. PPIE members provided feedback on the PREM's comprehensibility. Members of the public, including adults attending lip-reading classes and hearing aid users from the South Asian community, provided feedback on iterative PREM drafts.

Project description:BackgroundSubstantial 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.MethodsThis 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 12TM.DiscussionData 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 registrationPROSPERO CRD42020182904 .

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the feasibility of a digital and continuous collection and reporting of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) for chronic heart failure (CHF).DesignA single-site pilot study was settled for evaluating the feasibility of the intervention, both using qualitative and quantitative data (ie, workshop, surveys).SettingThe pilot has been implemented in a Tuscan specialised hospital (Italy).Participants162 patients were involved. Inclusion criteria were: a previous diagnosis of HF, age ≥18 years, absence of cognitive impairment or active tumours, ability to provide informed consent to study participation.InterventionThe continuous collection and reporting of PROMs and PREMs has been designed and implemented in 2018. PREMs questionnaires for patients were developed, while Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 was used for assessing PROMs. Questionnaires are administered at specific time points: discharge; 30 days, 7 and 12 months after the discharge. Enrolment of patients, administration and real-time reporting of questionnaires are carried on through a digital platform.Outcome measuresEnrolment, response and drop-out rates were considered to assess the feasibility of the intervention. Qualitative data were collected during meetings and workshops with health workers. The representativeness of the recruited sample with respect to the population characteristics was also evaluated.ResultsThe system has been successfully implemented during 2018. Response rates have been consistently above 50%, demonstrating patients' transversal willingness to participate. All the involved stakeholders acknowledged the feasibility of the design. The recruited sample is significantly different in terms of age and educational level compared with the overall population characteristics.ConclusionIt is possible to run a web-based systematic collection and reporting system for CHF patient-reported data. Systematic collection and reporting of PROMs and PREMs data allows professionals to increasingly assume CHF patient perspective in their daily work. Limitations will be used to improve the system.

Project description:BackgroundMobile health (mHealth) technologies are increasingly used in various medical fields. However, the potential of mHealth to improve patient care in radiotherapy by acquiring electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) during treatment has been poorly studied so far.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to develop and implement a novel Web app (PROMetheus) for patients undergoing radiotherapy. Herein, we have reported our experience with a focus on feasibility, patient acceptance, and a correlation of ePROMs with the clinical course of the patients.MethodsIn the period between January and June 2018, 21 patients used PROMetheus to score side effects, symptoms, and quality of life-related parameters during and after their treatment. Items of the Patient Reported Outcome version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) were chosen based on the primary site of disease, 27 items for head and neck tumors, 21 items for thoracic tumors, and 24 items for pelvic tumors.ResultsIn total, 17 out of the 21 patients (81%) regularly submitted ePROMs and more than 2500 data points were acquired. An average of 5.2, 3.5, and 3.3 min was required to complete the head and neck, thorax, and pelvis questionnaires, respectively. ePROMS were able to detect the occurrence of both expected and unexpected side effects during the treatment. In addition, a gradual increase in the severity of side effects over the course the treatment and their remission afterward could be observed with ePROMs. In total, 9 out of the 17 patients (53%), mostly those with head and neck and thoracic cancers, reported PRO-CTCAE grade III or IV fatigue with severe impairments of activities of daily life.ConclusionsThis study shows the successful implementation of an ePROM system and a high patient acceptance. ePROMs have a great potential to improve patient care in radiotherapy by providing a comprehensive documentation of symptoms and side effects, especially of ones that are otherwise underreported.

Dataset Information

A qualitative study to identify thematic areas for HIV related patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and patient-reported experience measures (PREM).

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A qualitative study to identify thematic areas for HIV related patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and patient-reported experience measures (PREM).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets