定性研究的系统性综述,探讨矫形外科医生参与患者报告结果测量数据的障碍和促进因素。

IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Pub Date : 2024-12-18 DOI:10.1186/s41687-024-00820-x
Emma L Heath, Ian A Harris, Lorena Romero, Ilana N Ackerman
{"title":"定性研究的系统性综述,探讨矫形外科医生参与患者报告结果测量数据的障碍和促进因素。","authors":"Emma L Heath, Ian A Harris, Lorena Romero, Ilana N Ackerman","doi":"10.1186/s41687-024-00820-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Orthopaedic surgeon engagement with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data has not been comprehensively evaluated, despite increasing uptake of orthopaedic PROMs programmes globally. The aim of this review was to systematically identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative evidence on barriers and facilitators to orthopaedic surgeons' engagement with PROMs data and their use of these data to support clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE CENTRAL, PSYCINFO, CINAHL and EMCARE) were searched from January 2000-March 2024 to identify potentially eligible qualitative studies. Established systematic review methods were used for screening and data extraction, applying PRISMA guidelines. Quality assessment was undertaken using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool for qualitative research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies were eligible for inclusion; of these, five studies were qualitative and three studies were mixed-method designs incorporating a qualitative component. Three studies were specific to orthopaedic surgeons and the remaining five studies comprised of mixed samples of health professionals including orthopaedic surgeons. Only one study was classified as being of high methodological quality. Key barrier themes for orthopaedic surgeons were logistical issues, difficulty interpreting and understanding PROMs, and scepticism of the value of PROMs in clinical care. Key enabler themes included improvements to PROMs infrastructure, surgeon education around the potential value, uses and interpretation of PROMs data, aggregate reporting of PROMs data and early involvement of surgeons in the planning and development of PROM systems.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While these studies highlight some practical considerations and opportunities that can be addressed through clinician education, there is little high-quality evidence on factors that influence orthopaedic surgeon engagement with PROMs data. Robust qualitative research is needed to better inform tailored support and assist surgeons in integrating PROMs data within orthopaedic care.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"8 1","pages":"144"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11655713/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review of qualitative studies examining barriers and facilitators to orthopaedic surgeon engagement with patient-reported outcome measures data.\",\"authors\":\"Emma L Heath, Ian A Harris, Lorena Romero, Ilana N Ackerman\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41687-024-00820-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Orthopaedic surgeon engagement with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data has not been comprehensively evaluated, despite increasing uptake of orthopaedic PROMs programmes globally. The aim of this review was to systematically identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative evidence on barriers and facilitators to orthopaedic surgeons' engagement with PROMs data and their use of these data to support clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE CENTRAL, PSYCINFO, CINAHL and EMCARE) were searched from January 2000-March 2024 to identify potentially eligible qualitative studies. Established systematic review methods were used for screening and data extraction, applying PRISMA guidelines. Quality assessment was undertaken using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool for qualitative research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies were eligible for inclusion; of these, five studies were qualitative and three studies were mixed-method designs incorporating a qualitative component. Three studies were specific to orthopaedic surgeons and the remaining five studies comprised of mixed samples of health professionals including orthopaedic surgeons. Only one study was classified as being of high methodological quality. Key barrier themes for orthopaedic surgeons were logistical issues, difficulty interpreting and understanding PROMs, and scepticism of the value of PROMs in clinical care. Key enabler themes included improvements to PROMs infrastructure, surgeon education around the potential value, uses and interpretation of PROMs data, aggregate reporting of PROMs data and early involvement of surgeons in the planning and development of PROM systems.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While these studies highlight some practical considerations and opportunities that can be addressed through clinician education, there is little high-quality evidence on factors that influence orthopaedic surgeon engagement with PROMs data. Robust qualitative research is needed to better inform tailored support and assist surgeons in integrating PROMs data within orthopaedic care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36660,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"144\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11655713/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00820-x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00820-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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
A systematic review of qualitative studies examining barriers and facilitators to orthopaedic surgeon engagement with patient-reported outcome measures data.

Background: Orthopaedic surgeon engagement with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data has not been comprehensively evaluated, despite increasing uptake of orthopaedic PROMs programmes globally. The aim of this review was to systematically identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative evidence on barriers and facilitators to orthopaedic surgeons' engagement with PROMs data and their use of these data to support clinical practice.

Methods: Six databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE CENTRAL, PSYCINFO, CINAHL and EMCARE) were searched from January 2000-March 2024 to identify potentially eligible qualitative studies. Established systematic review methods were used for screening and data extraction, applying PRISMA guidelines. Quality assessment was undertaken using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool for qualitative research.

Results: Eight studies were eligible for inclusion; of these, five studies were qualitative and three studies were mixed-method designs incorporating a qualitative component. Three studies were specific to orthopaedic surgeons and the remaining five studies comprised of mixed samples of health professionals including orthopaedic surgeons. Only one study was classified as being of high methodological quality. Key barrier themes for orthopaedic surgeons were logistical issues, difficulty interpreting and understanding PROMs, and scepticism of the value of PROMs in clinical care. Key enabler themes included improvements to PROMs infrastructure, surgeon education around the potential value, uses and interpretation of PROMs data, aggregate reporting of PROMs data and early involvement of surgeons in the planning and development of PROM systems.

Conclusion: While these studies highlight some practical considerations and opportunities that can be addressed through clinician education, there is little high-quality evidence on factors that influence orthopaedic surgeon engagement with PROMs data. Robust qualitative research is needed to better inform tailored support and assist surgeons in integrating PROMs data within orthopaedic care.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
120
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Serbian Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) Questionnaire (refers to r-axSpA) and its relations with disease activity and functional status indices. Patient-reported outcomes of zirconia dental implants: a systematic review and future directions. Development of a brief screening measure of unmet supportive care needs (SCNS-P&C-6) in caregivers of people with high-grade glioma. COping with Rheumatic Stressors (CORS) questionnaire: validated German translation and cross-cultural adaptation for patients with axSpA. Patient-reported outcome measures to assess mental and physical health status, functionality, and quality of life in patients with major depression or schizophrenia.
×
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