Healthcare provider characteristics that influence the implementation of individual-level patient-centered outcome measure (PROM) and patient-reported experience measure (PREM) data across practice settings: a protocol for a mixed methods systematic review with a narrative synthesis

Abstract

Background Substantial literature has highlighted the importance of patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs, respectively) to collect clinically relevant information to better understand and address what matters to patients. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize the evidence about how healthcare providers implement individual-level PROMs and PREMs data into daily practice. Methods This mixed methods systematic review protocol describes the design of our synthesis of the peer-reviewed research evidence (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods), systematic reviews, organizational implementation projects, expert opinion, and grey literature. Keyword synonyms for “PROMs,” PREMs,” and “implementation” will be used to search eight databases (i.e., MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase, SPORTDiscus, Evidence-based Medicine Reviews, and ProQuest (Dissertation and Theses)) with limiters of English from 2009 onwards. Study selection criteria include implementation at the point-of-care by healthcare providers in any practice setting. Eligible studies will be critically appraised using validated tools (e.g., Joanna Briggs Institute). Guided by the review questions, data extraction and synthesis will occur simultaneously to identify biographical information and methodological characteristics as well as classify study findings related to implementation processes and strategies. As part of the narrative synthesis approach, two frameworks will be utilized: (a) Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify influential factors of PROMs and PREMs implementation and (b) Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) to illicit strategies. Data management will be undertaken using NVivo 12TM. Discussion Data from PROMs and PREMs are critical to adopt a person-centered approach to healthcare. Findings from this review will guide subsequent phases of a larger project that includes interviews and a consensus-building forum with end users to create guidelines for implementing PROMs and PREMs at the point of care. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020182904.

Patient‐reported impact of symptoms in schizophrenia scale (PRISS): Development and validation

“…It is relevant to mention the current terminological debate between PROMs and patient-reported experience measures or PREMs. 46 While PROMs 'capture how patients function or feel with respect to their health; disease condition and its treatment; or functional status, quality of life, or mental well-being', while PREMs refer to 'how patients feel with respect to their healthcare or illness experience'. This distinction is controversial particularly in mental health, where there is a clear overlap between reported measures of the disease condition and the illness experience.…”

Patient-reported outcome measures can advance population health, but is access to instruments and use equitable?

“…Increasing evidence suggests that healthcare system-level factors including characteristics of providers and clinic staff can influence the implementation of PROM ( 23 ). Additional factors impacting adoption of collecting of PRO or barriers to PROM are large clinic size [high burden of implementation with the number of patients seen] ( 24 ); clinic leadership biases and belief in value of PROM tool ( 24 ); and language barriers—most PROM are written in English and this creates a significant barrier for non-English speakers ( 3 , 25 ).…”

The History and Applications of the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12)

“…The advantages of the VR-12 include its validity across diverse sociodemographic and clinical groups, its ease of use for both the patient and the provider, and its psychometric robustness. Despite the VR-12's and other PRO measures' potential utility in clinical practice, their usage in individual patients has been limited compared with population-based studies, where the VR-12 has been most extensively employed (Wolff et al, 2021).…”