Facilitators and Barriers in the Implementation and Adoption of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurements in Daily Practice

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Value in Health Pub Date : 2024-06-07 DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2024.05.020
{"title":"Facilitators and Barriers in the Implementation and Adoption of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurements in Daily Practice","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.05.020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>At the Erasmus Medical Center, patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) are implemented on a hospital-wide scale. However, less than half of the patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) use these PROMs. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate facilitators and barriers for adoption of PROMs to develop guidance around implementation.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A mixed-methods study with a combination of interviews and focus groups and questionnaires was conducted, involving patients, both PROM nonresponders and PROM responders, HCPs, and medicine students and nurse specialists in training (hereafter “students”). Interview transcripts were subjected to thematic content analysis. Subsequently, questionnaires were developed and presented to all stakeholders to validate the findings. Finally, identified themes and implementation recommendations were presented in a final questionnaire to the Value-Based Healthcare Erasmus Medical Center expert group to prioritize findings.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Interviews were conducted with 15 patients, 14 HCPs and 4 students, and 2 focus groups with 5 students. The questionnaire was completed by 370 of 999 responders (37.0%), 173 of 1395 nonresponders (12.5%), and 44 of 194 HCPs (22.7%), and 40 students were reached via an open link. The identified facilitators and barriers were grouped into 4 overarching themes: training on PROMs at different levels in the education of (future) HCPs, motivate and reduce the burden for the HCP, implement generic and disease-specific PROMs simultaneously, and motivate, activate, and reduce the patient burden.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Providing end users with digital tools, implementation support, and a clear hospital-wide vision is important, yet this does not guarantee successful adoption of PROMs. Successful adoption necessitates ongoing efforts to engage, motivate, and train end users.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301524024070/pdfft?md5=96c0bc966b8cc310fcae9029458e4b3f&pid=1-s2.0-S1098301524024070-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301524024070","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

At the Erasmus Medical Center, patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) are implemented on a hospital-wide scale. However, less than half of the patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) use these PROMs. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate facilitators and barriers for adoption of PROMs to develop guidance around implementation.

Methods

A mixed-methods study with a combination of interviews and focus groups and questionnaires was conducted, involving patients, both PROM nonresponders and PROM responders, HCPs, and medicine students and nurse specialists in training (hereafter “students”). Interview transcripts were subjected to thematic content analysis. Subsequently, questionnaires were developed and presented to all stakeholders to validate the findings. Finally, identified themes and implementation recommendations were presented in a final questionnaire to the Value-Based Healthcare Erasmus Medical Center expert group to prioritize findings.

Results

Interviews were conducted with 15 patients, 14 HCPs and 4 students, and 2 focus groups with 5 students. The questionnaire was completed by 370 of 999 responders (37.0%), 173 of 1395 nonresponders (12.5%), and 44 of 194 HCPs (22.7%), and 40 students were reached via an open link. The identified facilitators and barriers were grouped into 4 overarching themes: training on PROMs at different levels in the education of (future) HCPs, motivate and reduce the burden for the HCP, implement generic and disease-specific PROMs simultaneously, and motivate, activate, and reduce the patient burden.

Conclusions

Providing end users with digital tools, implementation support, and a clear hospital-wide vision is important, yet this does not guarantee successful adoption of PROMs. Successful adoption necessitates ongoing efforts to engage, motivate, and train end users.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在日常实践中实施和采用 "患者报告结果测量法 "的促进因素和障碍。
目的:伊拉斯姆斯医学院在全院范围内实施了 "患者报告结果衡量标准"(PROMs)。然而,只有不到一半的患者和医护人员(HCP)使用这些 PROMs。因此,本研究旨在调查采用 PROMs 的促进因素和障碍,以制定实施指南:采用访谈、焦点小组和问卷调查相结合的混合方法进行研究,参与人员包括未对 PROM 作出反应和对 PROM 作出反应的患者、医护人员、医学专业学生和接受培训的专科护士(以下简称 "学生")。对(小组)访谈记录进行了主题内容分析。随后,编制了调查问卷,并提交给所有利益相关者,以验证调查结果。最后,确定的主题和实施建议以最终问卷的形式提交给伊拉斯谟医学院价值医疗专家组,以便对调查结果进行优先排序:对 15 名患者、14 名医疗保健人员和 4 名学生进行了访谈,对 5 名学生进行了 2 次焦点小组讨论。370/999名回复者(37.0%)、173/1395名未回复者(12.5%)、44/194名保健医生(22.7%)完成了问卷调查,40名学生通过开放链接完成了问卷调查。已确定的促进因素和障碍被归纳为四个首要主题:在(未来的)HCPS 教育中对不同层次的 PROMs 进行培训;激励并减轻 HCP 的负担;同时实施通用和特定疾病的 PROMs;激励、激活并减轻患者的负担:为最终用户提供数字工具、实施支持和明确的全院愿景非常重要,但这并不能保证 PROMs 的成功应用。成功采用 PROMs 需要不断努力,吸引、激励和培训最终用户。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
期刊最新文献
Analytical Methods for Comparing Uncontrolled Trials with External Controls from Real-World Data: a Systematic Literature Review and Comparison to European Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Practice. Author Reply to "Cost-of/Burden-of-Illness Studies: Steps Backward?" Author Reply. Table of Contents Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1