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
. 2021 Nov;30(11):3015-3033.
doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02564-9. Epub 2020 Jul 10.

Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings

Angela M Stover  1   2 , Lotte Haverman  3 , Hedy A van Oers  3 , Joanne Greenhalgh  4 , Caroline M Potter  5 ; ISOQOL PROMs/PREMs in Clinical Practice Implementation Science Work Group
Collaborators, Affiliations

Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings

Angela M Stover et al. Qual Life Res. 2021 Nov.

Abstract

Purpose: Patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs/PREMs) are well established in research for many health conditions, but barriers persist for implementing them in routine care. Implementation science (IS) offers a potential way forward, but its application has been limited for PROMs/PREMs.

Methods: We compare similarities and differences for widely used IS frameworks and their applicability for implementing PROMs/PREMs through case studies. Three case studies implemented PROMs: (1) pain clinics in Canada; (2) oncology clinics in Australia; and (3) pediatric/adult clinics for chronic conditions in the Netherlands. The fourth case study is planning PREMs implementation in Canadian primary care clinics. We compare case studies on barriers, enablers, implementation strategies, and evaluation.

Results: Case studies used IS frameworks to systematize barriers, to develop implementation strategies for clinics, and to evaluate implementation effectiveness. Across case studies, consistent PROM/PREM implementation barriers were technology, uncertainty about how or why to use PROMs/PREMs, and competing demands from established clinical workflows. Enabling factors in clinics were context specific. Implementation support strategies changed during pre-implementation, implementation, and post-implementation stages. Evaluation approaches were inconsistent across case studies, and thus, we present example evaluation metrics specific to PROMs/PREMs.

Conclusion: Multilevel IS frameworks are necessary for PROM/PREM implementation given the complexity. In cross-study comparisons, barriers to PROM/PREM implementation were consistent across patient populations and care settings, but enablers were context specific, suggesting the need for tailored implementation strategies based on clinic resources. Theoretically guided studies are needed to clarify how, why, and in what circumstances IS principles lead to successful PROM/PREM integration and sustainability.

Keywords: Clinical practice; Implementation science; Patient-reported outcome measures; Quality of life; Routine care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Relationships between PROM/PREM implementation strategies, implementation science outcomes, and patient outcomes
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Four case studies
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
PROM/PREM barriers and enablers in case studies
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Implementation strategies used in case studies, shown by implementation stage
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kotronoulas G, Kearney N, Maguire R, Harrow A, Di Domenico D, Croy S, et al. What is the value of the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2014;32(14):1480–1501. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.5948. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Boyce MB, Browne JP. Does providing feedback on patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals result in better outcomes for patients? A systematic review. Quality of Life Research. 2013;22(9):2265–2278. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0390-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Food US, Administration D. Patient-focused drug development: Methods to identify what is important to patients: Draft guidance for industry, food and drug administration staff, and other stakeholders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2019.
    1. Kingsley C, Patel S. Patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures. British Journal of Anaesthesia Education. 2017;17(4):137–144.
    1. Yang LY, Manhas DS, Howard AF, Olson RA. Patient-reported outcome use in oncology: A systematic review of the impact on patient-clinician communication. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2018;26(1):41–60. doi: 10.1007/s00520-017-3865-7. - DOI - PubMed