Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are reports coming directly from patients about how they function or feel in relation to a health condition and its therapy, without interpretation of the patient’s responses by a physician or anyone else1 (Box 1). PROs are increasingly used in clinical research, and their usefulness to inform clinicians’ and patients’ decisions about treatment alternatives is beginning to be understood.3 But results of empirical testing of using PROs in clinical practice have been inconsistent, and ascertaining the circumstances under which PROs are truly helpful beyond research settings remains a challenge.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1 National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
- 2 Health Services Research Unit, Institut Municipal d’Investigació Mèdica, Barcelona, Spain.
- 3 CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública, Barcelona, Spain.
- 4 Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
- 5 CLARITY (Clinical Advances through Research and Information Translation), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
- 1. Valderas JM, Kotzeva A, Espallargues M, et al. The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res 2008; 17: 179-193.
- 2. Roland M. Linking physicians’ pay to the quality of care — a major experiment in the United Kingdom. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 1448-1454.
- 3. Guyatt GH, Ferrans CE, Halyard MY, et al; Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Exploration of the value of health-related quality-of-life information from clinical research and into clinical practice. Mayo Clin Proc 2007; 82: 1229-1239.
- 4. Detmar SB, Muller MJ, Schornagel JH, et al. Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient–physician communication: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002; 288: 3027-3034.
- 5. Velikova G, Booth L, Smith AB, et al. Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 714-724.
- 6. Espallargues M, Valderas, JM, Alonso J. Provision of feedback on perceived health status to health care professionals: a systematic review of its impact. Med Care 2000; 38: 175-186.
- 7. Valderas JM, Rue M, Guyatt G, Alonso J; Systematic Use of Quality of Life Measures in the Clinical Practice Working Group. The impact of the VF-14 index, a perceived visual function measure, in the routine management of cataract patients. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 1743-1753.
- 8. Greenhalgh J, Long AF, Flynn R. The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: lack of impact or lack of theory? Soc Sci Med 2005; 60: 833-843.
- 9. Hahn EA, Cella D, Chassany O, et al; Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Precision of health-related quality-of-life data compared with other clinical measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2007; 82: 1244-1254.
- 10. Guyatt G, Schunemann H. How can quality of life researchers make their work more useful to health workers and their patients? Qual Life Res 2007; 16: 1097-1105.
- 11. Valderas JM, Ferrer M, Mendívil J, et al; Scientific Committee on “Patient-Reported Outcomes” of the IRYSS Network. Development of EMPRO: a tool for the standardized assessment of patient-reported outcome measures. Value Health 2008; 10 (6). doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00309.x.