Background Achieving people-centred health care systems requires new and innovative strategies to capture information about whether, and to what degree, health care is successful in improving health from the perspective of the patient. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) can bring some of these new insights, and are increasingly used in research, clinical care, and policymaking. Methods This paper reflects the ongoing discussions and findings of the OECD PaRIS Working Group on Patient-reported Indicators for Mental Health Care. Results The OECD has been measuring quality of care for mental health conditions over the last 14 years through the Health Care Quality and Outcomes (HCQO) program; nonetheless, information on how persons with mental health problems value the services they receive, and impact of the services, remains limited. As of 2018, a survey from the OECD showed that only five of the twelve countries surveyed (Australia, Israel, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom) reported PROMs and PREMs collection on a regular basis in mental health settings. The paper details some of the challenges specific to the collection and use of PROMs and PREMs in mental health care, and examples from countries which have implemented comprehensive programmes to gather information about PROMs and PREMs for individuals receiving mental health services. Conclusions Given the health and economic impact of mental ill-health across all OECD countries, there is significant value to being able to assess the quality and outcomes of care in this area using internationally-comparable measures. Continued international harmonisation of PROMs and PREMs for mental health through international coordination is a key way to facilitate the sharing of national experiences, promote the use of PROMs and PREMs, and create meaningful indicators for national and international benchmarking.

Background Achieving people-centred health care systems requires new and innovative strategies to capture information about whether, and to what degree, health care is successful in improving health from the perspective of the patient. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) can bring some of these new insights, and are increasingly used in research, clinical care, and policymaking. Methods This paper reflects the ongoing discussions and findings of the OECD PaRIS Working Group on Patient-reported Indicators for Mental Health Care. Results The OECD has been measuring quality of care for mental health conditions over the last 14 years through the Health Care Quality and Outcomes (HCQO) program; nonetheless, information on how persons with mental health problems value the services they receive, and impact of the services, remains limited. As of 2018, a survey from the OECD showed that only five of the twelve countries surveyed (Australia, Israel, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom) reported PROMs and PREMs collection on a regular basis in mental health settings. The paper details some of the challenges specific to the collection and use of PROMs and PREMs in mental health care, and examples from countries which have implemented comprehensive programmes to gather information about PROMs and PREMs for individuals receiving mental health services. Conclusions Given the health and economic impact of mental ill-health across all OECD countries, there is significant value to being able to assess the quality and outcomes of care in this area using internationally-comparable measures. Continued international harmonisation of PROMs and PREMs for mental health through international coordination is a key way to facilitate the sharing of national experiences, promote the use of PROMs and PREMs, and create meaningful indicators for national and international benchmarking.

BackgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are the only systematic approach through which the patient’s perspective can be considered by surgeons (in determining a procedure’s efficacy or appropriateness) or healthcare systems (in the context of value-based healthcare). PROMs in registries enable international comparison of patient-centered outcomes after total joint arthroplasty, but the extent to which those scores may vary between different registry populations has not been clearly defined.Questions/purposes(1) To what degree do mean change in general and joint-specific PROM scores vary across arthroplasty registries, and to what degree is the proportion of missing PROM scores in an individual registry associated with differences in the mean reported change scores? (2) Do PROM scores vary with patient BMI across registries? (3) Are comorbidity levels comparable across registries, and are they associated with differences in PROM scores?MethodsThirteen national, regional, or institutional registries from nine countries reported aggregate PROM scores for patients who had completed PROMs preoperatively and 6 and/or 12 months postoperatively. The requested aggregate PROM scores were the EuroQol-5 Dimension Questionnaire (EQ-5D) index values, on which score 1 reflects “full health” and 0 reflects “as bad as death.” Joint-specific PROMs were the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), with total scores ranging from 0 to 48 (worst-best), and the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function shortform (HOOS-PS) and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function shortform (KOOS-PS) values, scored 0 to 100 (worst-best). Eligible patients underwent primary unilateral THA or TKA for osteoarthritis between 2016 and 2019. Registries were asked to exclude patients with subsequent revisions within their PROM collection period. Raw aggregated PROM scores and scores adjusted for age, gender, and baseline values were inspected descriptively. Across all registries and PROMs, the reported percentage of missing PROM data varied from 9% (119 of 1354) to 97% (5305 of 5445). We therefore graphically explored whether PROM scores were associated with the level of data completeness. For each PROM cohort, chi-square tests were performed for BMI distributions across registries and 12 predefined PROM strata (men versus women; age 20 to 64 years, 65 to 74 years, and older than 75 years; and high or low preoperative PROM scores). Comorbidity distributions were evaluated descriptively by comparing proportions with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification of 3 or higher across registries for each PROM cohort.ResultsThe mean improvement in EQ-5D index values (10 registries) ranged from 0.16 to 0.33 for hip registries and 0.12 to 0.25 for knee registries. The mean improvement in the OHS (seven registries) ranged from 18 to 24, and for the HOOS-PS (three registries) it ranged from 29 to 35. The mean improvement in the OKS (six registries) range...

IntroductionIn view of growing populations with chronic conditions, many countries are redesigning their health systems. However, little information is available about how health systems perform from the perspective of people living with chronic conditions. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Member States therefore mandated the OECD to initiate the International Survey of People Living with Chronic Conditions (PaRIS survey), which aims to provide insight in outcomes and experiences of care as reported by people living with chronic conditions. The PaRIS-SUR consortium has been tasked by the OECD to support the development and implementation of the survey.Methods and analysisAs primary care services play a pivotal role in the management of chronic conditions, the PaRIS survey will be implemented in the primary care setting. Data will be collected with a survey among users of primary care services aged 45 years or older, of whom many have chronic conditions. An additional survey is conducted among their primary care providers. The nested study design will allow analysis of the patient-reported data in relation to characteristics of and care provided by primary care providers within and across countries. In 2022, the survey will be tested in a Field Trial in participating countries. Data for cross-country comparison will be collected by the Main Survey in 2023.Ethics and disseminationInformed consent will be obtained from primary care providers and service users. National Project Managers search ethical approval of the survey in their country, if required. Reporting by the OECD will focus on questions for international comparison. A secured information technology platform will be developed for participants and stakeholders in countries to receive feedback and answer their own questions. Findings will also be disseminated through an international OECD flagship report, conferences, scientific papers and policy briefs, to inform strategies to improve care for people living with chronic conditions throughout the world.

systems/health-working-papers.htm OECD Working Papers should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the author(s). Working Papers describe preliminary results or research in progress by the author(s) and are published to stimulate discussion on a broad range of issues on which the OECD works. Comments on Working Papers are welcomed, and may be sent to health.contact@oecd.org. This series is designed to make available to a wider readership selected health studies prepared for use within the OECD. Authorship is usually collective, but principal writers are named. The papers are generally available only in their original language-English or French-with a summary in the other. This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law. Note by Turkey: The information in this document with reference to "Cyprus" relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no single authority representing both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Turkey recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within the context of the United Nations, Turkey shall preserve its position concerning the "Cyprus issue". Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Union: The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Turkey. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.