Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Jul 22;4(7):e005601.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005601.

Functionality and feedback: a protocol for a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of PROMs data to improve patient care

Affiliations

Functionality and feedback: a protocol for a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of PROMs data to improve patient care

Joanne Greenhalgh et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Introduction: The feedback and public reporting of PROMs data aims to improve the quality of care provided to patients. Existing systematic reviews have found it difficult to draw overall conclusions about the effectiveness of PROMs feedback. We aim to execute a realist synthesis of the evidence to understand by what means and in what circumstances the feedback of PROMs data leads to the intended service improvements.

Methods and analysis: Realist synthesis involves (stage 1) identifying the ideas, assumptions or 'programme theories' which explain how PROMs feedback is supposed to work and in what circumstances and then (stage 2) reviewing the evidence to determine the extent to which these expectations are met in practice. For stage 1, six provisional 'functions' of PROMs feedback have been identified to structure our review (screening, monitoring, patient involvement, demand management, quality improvement and patient choice). For each function, we will identify the different programme theories that underlie these different goals and develop a logical map of the respective implementation processes. In stage 2, we will identify studies that will provide empirical tests of each component of the programme theories to evaluate the circumstances in which the potential obstacles can be overcome and whether and how the unintended consequences of PROMs feedback arise. We will synthesise this evidence to (1) identify the implementation processes which support or constrain the successful collation, interpretation and utilisation of PROMs data; (2) identify the implementation processes through which the unintended consequences of PROMs data arise and those where they can be avoided.

Ethics and dissemination: The study will not require NHS ethics approval. We have secured ethical approval for the study from the University of Leeds (LTSSP-019). We will disseminate the findings of the review through a briefing paper and dissemination event for National Health Service stakeholders, conferences and peer reviewed publications.

Keywords: PROMs; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Realist Synthesis; feedback; service delivery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram for realist synthesis.

References

    1. Dawson J, Doll H, Fitzpatrick R, et al. The routine use of patient reported outcome measures in healthcare settings. BMJ 2010;340:c186. - PubMed
    1. Guyatt G, Veldhuuyzen van Zanten SJO, Feeny DH, et al. Measuring quality of life in clinical trials: a taxonomy and review. CMAJ 1989;140:1441–48 - PMC - PubMed
    1. DoH Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS. London:TSO, 2010
    1. Trust N. Rating providers for quality: a policy worth pursuing? London: Nuffield Trust, 2013
    1. Haywood K, Garratt A, Carrivick S, et al. Continence specialists use of quality of life information in routine practice: a national survey of practitioners. Qual Life Res 2009;18:423–33 - PubMed

Publication types