Do patients have a say? A narrative review of the development of patient-reported outcome measures used in elective procedures for coronary revascularisation
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) capture health information from the patient’s perspective that can be used when weighing up benefits, risks and costs of treatment. This is important for elective procedures such as those for coronary revascularisation. Patients should be involved in the development of PROMs to accurately capture outcomes that are important for the patient. The aims of this review are to identify if patients were involved in the development of cardiovascular-specific PROMs used for assessing outcomes from elective coronary revascularisation, and to explore what methods were used to capture patient perspectives.
PROMs for evaluating outcomes from elective coronary revascularisation were identified from a previous review and an updated systematic search. The studies describing the development of the PROMs were reviewed for information on patient input in their conceptual and/or item development.
24 PROMs were identified from a previous review and three additional PROMs were identified from the updated search. Full texts were obtained for 26 of the 27 PROMs. The 26 studies (11 multidimensional, 15 unidimensional) were reviewed. Only nine studies reported developing PROMs using patient input. For eight PROMs, the inclusion of patient input could not be judged due to insufficient information in the full text.
Only nine of the 26 reviewed PROMs used in elective coronary revascularisation reported involving patients in their conceptual and/or item development, while patient input was unclear for eight PROMs. These findings suggest that the patient’s perspective is often overlooked or poorly described in the development of PROMs.
KeywordsCoronary artery disease Patient-reported outcome measures Quality of life Percutaneous coronary intervention
The project was supported by a Medibank Health Research Fund (Application Number: 2014-044, Melbourne, Australia). The funding source had no influence on the study design, data collection and analyses, interpretation and decision to publish.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry patient-reported outcomes measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims.Google Scholar
- 4.Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Gwaltney, C. J., et al. (2011). Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: Part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value in Health, 14(8), 967–977.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Mackintosh, A., Gibbons, E., Casanas i Comabella, C., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2010). A structured review of patient-reported outcome measures used in elective procedures for coronary revascularisation. Oxford: University of Oxford, Department of Public Health.Google Scholar
- 16.Baumeister, H., Abberger, B., Haschke, A., Boecker, M., Bengel, J., & Wirtz, M. (2013). Development and calibration of an item bank for the assessment of activities of daily living in cardiovascular patients using Rasch analysis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 133.Google Scholar
- 18.Wan, C., Li, H., Fan, X., et al. (2014). Development and validation of the coronary heart disease scale under the system of quality of life instruments for chronic diseases QLICD-CHD: Combinations of classical test theory and Generalizability Theory. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 26.Ferrans, C. E., & Powers, M. J. (1985). Quality of life index: Development and psychometric properties. ANS, 8(1), 15–24.Google Scholar
- 37.The ENRICHD Investigators. (2000). Enhancing recovery in coronary heart disease patients (ENRICHD): Study design and methods. American Heart Journal, 139(1 Pt 1), 1–9.Google Scholar
- 42.Artinian, N. T., Duggan, C., & Miller, P. (1993). Age differences in patient recovery patterns following coronary artery bypass surgery. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2(6), 453–461.Google Scholar
- 46.LaPier, T. K., & Chunkwon, J. (2002). Development and content validity of the heart surgery symptom inventory. Acute Care Perspectives, 11, 5–12.Google Scholar
- 48.Haywood, K. L., Mars, T. S., Potter, R., Patel, S., Matharu, M., & Underwood, M. (2017). Assessing the impact of headaches and the outcomes of treatment: A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Cephalalgia. https://doi.org/10.1177/0333102417731348.
- 55.McNamara, R. L., Spatz, E. S., Kelley, T. A., et al. (2015). Standardized outcome measurement for patients with coronary artery disease: Consensus from the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM). Journal of the American Heart Association, 4(5), e001767CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 60.Jenkins, C. D., Jono, R. T., Stanton, B. A., Stroup-Benham, C. A., (1990). The measurement of health-related quality of life: major dimensions identified by factor analysis. Social Science Medicine, 31(8), 925–931.Google Scholar
- 61.Rose, G. A., Blackburn, H. (1968). Cardiovascular survey methods. Monograph Series World Health Organization, 56, 1–188.Google Scholar