Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: challenges and opportunities
Introduce and explore issues at an international conference about the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice.
Review of salient literature, clinical and personal experiences, conference presentations and discussions, and post-conference comments from outside experts.
PROs (information from patients about a health condition and its management) have been assessed through self-reports for at least four decades. Traditional applications are in clinical and health services research. Uses in clinical practice, although increasing, are less common and more challenging. PROs can enhance the understanding of patients’ experiences and responses to therapy and inform clinical practice.
We pose and discuss four main questions: (1) Will clinicians accept PRO measures? (2) Will clinicians use PRO measures? (3) Will measuring PROs actually improve those outcomes? (4) Will PROs be perceived as having other, less salutary purposes? A patient-centered perspective on PRO measurement presents issues about the extent to which PROs can accurately capture patient experiences and assess psychosocial and environmental factors that influence communication with clinicians and eventual outcomes. We end with comments about the intersection of PROs and bioethics, noting contributions that PROs may make to beneficence, patient autonomy, and distributive justice.
KeywordsBioethics Clinical practice Health status Outcomes measurement Patient care Quality of life
Activities of daily living
Health-related quality of life
Quality of life
The authors thank Loraine Monroe of RTI International for her outstanding word-processing support.
- 19.McDowell, I., & Newell, C. (1996). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 20.Bowling, A. (2001). Measuring disease: A review of disease-specific quality of life measurement scales (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- 21.Bowling, A. (Ed.). (2004). Measuring health: A review of quality of life measurement scales. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- 22.Lipscomb, J., Gotay, C. C., & Snyder, C. (2005). Outcomes assessment in cancer: Measures, methods, and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 23.Australian Centre on Quality of Life. Bibliography. 2007.Google Scholar
- 24.Sloan, J. A., Halyard, M. Y., Frost, M. H., et al.; Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. (2007). The Mayo Clinic manuscript series relative to the discussion, dissemination, and operationalization of the Food and Drug Administration guidance on patient-reported outcomes. Value in Health, 10(Suppl), S59–S63. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00267.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., et al. (2007). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S3–S11. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Wasson, J., Keller, A., Rubenstein, L., Hays, R., Nelson, E., & Johnson, D. (1992). Benefits and obstacles of health status assessment in ambulatory settings. The clinician’s point of view. The Dartmouth Primary Care COOP Project. Medical Care, 30(5 Suppl), MS42–MS49. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199205001-00004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.Detmar, S. B., Muller, M. J., Schornagel, J. H., Wever, L. D., & Aaronson, N. K. (2002). Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient–physician communication: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(23), 3027–3034. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.23.3027.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.Shin, H. G., & Bruno, R. (2003). Language use and English-speaking ability: 2000, Census 2000 brief. US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau.Google Scholar
- 47.US Census Bureau (2006). 2004 American Community Survey: Nativity by language spoken at home by ability to speak English for the population age 5 years and over. US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau.Google Scholar
- 49.Stovall, E. L. (1996). Practice guidelines: Patients’ perspective. Oncology (Williston Park), 10(11 Suppl), 255–260.Google Scholar
- 52.Zoppi, K. A., & Epstein, R. M. (2002). Interviewing in medical settings. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 355–384). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- 54.Briggs, C. L. (2002). Interviewing, power/knowledge, and social inequality. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 911–922). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- 59.Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
- 60.Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- 61.Institute of Medicine. (2008). Cancer care for the whole patient: Meeting psychosocial health needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- 62.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2006). National healthcare disparities report, 2006. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.Google Scholar
- 63.Povar, G. J. (1991). What does “quality” mean: Critical ethical issues for quality assurance. In R. H. Palmer, A. Donabedian, & G. J. Povar (Eds.), Striving for quality in health care. An inquiry into policy and practice. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press.Google Scholar