Agreeing the content of a patient‐reported outcome measure for primary care: a Delphi consensus study

Health Expectations - Tập 20 Số 2 - Trang 335-348 - 2017
Mairead Murphy1, Sandra Hollinghurst1, Chris Salisbury1
1Centre for Academic Primary Care, School for Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Tóm tắt

AbstractBackgroundAs the first contact for any health‐related need, primary care clinicians often address multiple patient problems, with a range of possible outcomes. There is currently no patient‐reported outcome measure (PROM) which covers this range of outcomes. Therefore, many research studies into primary care services use PROMs that do not capture the full impact of these services.ObjectiveThe study aim was to identify outcomes sought by primary care patients which clinicians can influence, thus providing the basis for a new primary care PROM.MethodsWe used a Delphi process starting with an outcomes list inductively derived in a prior qualitative study. Thirty‐five experts were recruited into patient, clinician and academic panels. Participants rated each outcome on whether it was (i) relevant to health, (ii) influenced by primary care and (iii) detectable by patients. In each round, outcomes which passed/failed preset levels of agreement were accepted/rejected. Remaining outcomes continued to the next round.ResultsThe process resulted in a set of outcomes occupying the domains of health status, health empowerment (internal and external), and health perceptions. Twenty‐six of 36 outcomes were accepted for inclusion in a PROM. Primary care having insufficient influence was the main reason for exclusion.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first time PROM outcomes have been agreed through criteria which explicitly exclude outcomes less relevant to health, uninfluenced by primary care or undetected by patients. The PROM in development covers a unique set of outcomes and offers an opportunity for enhanced research into primary care.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1007/s11606-011-1720-y

Salisbury C, 2007, Does Advanced Access improve access to primary health care? Questionnaire survey of patients, The British Journal of General Practice, 57, 615

10.3399/bjgp09X473150

10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61058-8

ManM‐S.The 3D Study: Improving Whole Person Care 2014. Available at:http://www.bristol.ac.uk/social-community-medicine/projects/3d-study/ accessed 11 November 2014.

10.1136/bmj.f2882

10.1186/1745-6215-15-36

10.1136/bmj.f1035

10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60240-2

10.3399/bjgp11X548929

10.1001/jama.1988.03410120089033

Fitzpatrick R, 2009, Performance Measurement for Health System Improvement: Experiences, Challenges and Prospect, 63

10.1136/bmj.f167

10.1136/bmj.b1242

Fitzpatrick R, 1998, Evaluating patient‐based outcome measures for use in clinical trials, Health Technology Assessment, 2, i, 10.3310/hta2140

Bowling A, 2004, Measuring Health: A Review of Quality of Life Measurement Scales

10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6

10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002

10.1136/bmj.320.7241.1048

10.1136/bmj.314.7075.190

10.1136/bmj.312.7037.1016

10.3399/bjgp13X674431

10.1370/afm.272

Peters M, 2013, Pilot Study of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Primary Care: Report to the Department of Health

PatersonC.University of Bristol website PHC section MYMOP: University of Bristol;2012. Available at:http://www.bristol.ac.uk/primaryhealthcare/resources/mymop/strengthsandweaknesses/ accessed 25 April 2014.

10.1093/fampra/15.2.165

10.1136/bmj.319.7212.738

10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199231881.001.0001

10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.09.023

University of Kent Personal Social Services Research Unit.ASCOT: Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit. Available at:http://www.pssru.ac.uk/ascot/2015 accessed 09 October 2015.

10.3399/bjgp14X683017

DeVellis RF, 2003, Scale Development: Theory and Applications

10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.014

10.1186/s12875-015-0323-9

Constitution of the World Health Organization.New York NY:World Health Organisation 2006.

Hsu C‐C, 2007, The delphi technique: making sense of consensus, Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 12, 1

10.1177/152715440000100409

10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02537.x

10.1136/qhc.12.1.8

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.Chapter 4: Adopting a More Quantitative and Transparent Measure Select Process: The IOM 2001 Recommendations for Measure Selection Criteria for the NHQR and NHDR 2010[cited 2014 14/02/2014]. Available from:http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/final-reports/iomqrdrreport/futureqrdr4c.html#IOM.

10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a024796

10.1111/hex.12341

10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00492.x

10.1136/qshc.2003.007815

10.1111/j.1467-842X.2000.tb00735.x

10.1353/pbm.2003.0002

10.1097/00005650-199011000-00007

10.1007/s11136-011-9927-2

10.1186/1472-6963-13-263

10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00438.x

10.1007/s10900-012-9615-3

10.1016/j.pec.2010.07.026

10.1093/fampra/cmi002

DalkeyNC.The Delphi Method: An Experimental study of Group Opinion. Santa Monica California: 1969 June 1969. Report No.

10.1002/bjs.9840

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Health Expectations

Tập 20 Số 2

335-348

Thông tin tác giả