The impact of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical
practice for pain: a systematic review
The impact of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical
practice for pain: a systematic review
Purpose: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have increasingly been incorporated into clinical practice. Research suggests that PROMs could be viewed as active components of complex interventions and may affect the process and outcome of care. This systematic review examines PROMs in the context of treatment for non-malignant pain.
Methods: An electronic search on: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Cochrane Library and Web of Science identified relevant papers (February 2015). The inclusion criteria were: focused on implementing PROMs into clinical practice, adults, and primary data studies. Critical interpretive synthesis was used to synthesise qualitative and quantitative findings into a theoretical argument.
Results: Thirteen eligible studies were identified. Synthesis suggested that PROMs may be included in the initial consultation to assess patients and for shared decision-making regarding patient care. During the course of treatment, PROMs can be used to track progress, evaluate treatment, and change the course of care; using PROMs may also influence the therapeutic relationship. Post-treatment, using PROMs might directly influence other outcomes such as pain and patient satisfaction. However, although studies have investigated these areas, evidence is weak and inconclusive.
Conclusion: Due to the poor quality, lack of generalisability and heterogeneity of these studies, it is not possible to provide a comprehensive understanding of how PROMs may impact clinical treatment of non-malignant pain. The literature suggests that PROMs enable pain assessment, decision-making, the therapeutic relationship, evaluation of treatment and may influence outcomes. Further research is needed to provide better evidence as to whether PROMs do indeed have any effects on these domains.
1-13
Holmes, Michelle
83deb057-57c5-48ec-a140-317676865ed8
Lewith, George
0fc483fa-f17b-47c5-94d9-5c15e65a7625
Newell, David
171846a9-6670-440c-993b-7859a30406cb
Field, Jonathan
61b0ca4a-3907-4847-b0b5-506e1929fc51
Bishop, Felicity L.
1f5429c5-325f-4ac4-aae3-6ba85d079928
Holmes, Michelle
83deb057-57c5-48ec-a140-317676865ed8
Lewith, George
0fc483fa-f17b-47c5-94d9-5c15e65a7625
Newell, David
171846a9-6670-440c-993b-7859a30406cb
Field, Jonathan
61b0ca4a-3907-4847-b0b5-506e1929fc51
Bishop, Felicity L.
1f5429c5-325f-4ac4-aae3-6ba85d079928
Holmes, Michelle, Lewith, George, Newell, David, Field, Jonathan and Bishop, Felicity L.
(2016)
The impact of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical
practice for pain: a systematic review.
Quality of Life Research, .
(doi:10.1007/s11136-016-1449-5).
Abstract
Purpose: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have increasingly been incorporated into clinical practice. Research suggests that PROMs could be viewed as active components of complex interventions and may affect the process and outcome of care. This systematic review examines PROMs in the context of treatment for non-malignant pain.
Methods: An electronic search on: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Cochrane Library and Web of Science identified relevant papers (February 2015). The inclusion criteria were: focused on implementing PROMs into clinical practice, adults, and primary data studies. Critical interpretive synthesis was used to synthesise qualitative and quantitative findings into a theoretical argument.
Results: Thirteen eligible studies were identified. Synthesis suggested that PROMs may be included in the initial consultation to assess patients and for shared decision-making regarding patient care. During the course of treatment, PROMs can be used to track progress, evaluate treatment, and change the course of care; using PROMs may also influence the therapeutic relationship. Post-treatment, using PROMs might directly influence other outcomes such as pain and patient satisfaction. However, although studies have investigated these areas, evidence is weak and inconclusive.
Conclusion: Due to the poor quality, lack of generalisability and heterogeneity of these studies, it is not possible to provide a comprehensive understanding of how PROMs may impact clinical treatment of non-malignant pain. The literature suggests that PROMs enable pain assessment, decision-making, the therapeutic relationship, evaluation of treatment and may influence outcomes. Further research is needed to provide better evidence as to whether PROMs do indeed have any effects on these domains.
Text
Holmes2016 QualLifeRes.pdf
- Version of Record
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 26 October 2016
e-pub ahead of print date: 4 November 2016
Organisations:
Primary Care & Population Sciences
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 402848
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/402848
ISSN: 0962-9343
PURE UUID: 40efb1cb-9f74-4266-b8f7-fd44d89c888b
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 16 Nov 2016 14:32
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 03:30
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
George Lewith
Author:
David Newell
Author:
Jonathan Field
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics