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
. 2023 Apr 3;6(4):e236425.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.6425.

Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Gender-Affirming Care Worldwide: A Systematic Review

Rakhshan Kamran  1 , Liam Jackman  2 , Cynthia Chan  3 , Yujin Suk  4 , Chloe Jacklin  5 , Eve Deck  6 , Nina Wietek  7 , Melissa Stepney  8 , Conrad Harrison  1 , Abhilash Jain  1 , Jeremy Rodrigues  9   10
Affiliations

Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Gender-Affirming Care Worldwide: A Systematic Review

Rakhshan Kamran et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: Gender-affirming care is a key clinical area that can benefit from implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Identifying barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation is needed to develop an evidence-based implementation strategy.

Objective: To identify (1) PROMs previously implemented for gender-affirming care and constructs measured, (2) how patients completed PROMs and how results were reported and used, and (3) barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation.

Evidence review: In this systematic review, PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from inception to October 25, 2021, and updated on December 16, 2022. Gray literature was searched through gray literature database, online search engine, and targeted website searching. Inclusion criteria were (1) original articles of (2) a formally developed PROM or ad hoc instrument administered for gender-affirming care to (3) patients accessing gender-affirming care. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was used to evaluate quality of included studies. This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021233080).

Findings: In total, 286 studies were included, representing 85 395 transgender and nonbinary patients from more than 30 countries. A total of 205 different PROMs were used in gender-affirming care. No studies described using an implementation science theory, model, or framework to support PROM deployment. Key barriers to PROM implementation included issues with evidence strength and quality of the PROM, engaging participants, and PROM complexity. Key enablers of PROM implementation included using PROMs validated for gender-affirming care, implementing PROMs able to be deployed online or in person, implementing PROMs that are shorter and reduce patient burden, engaging key stakeholders and participants as part of developing an implementation plan, and organizational climate.

Conclusions and relevance: In this systematic review of barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation in gender-affirming care, PROM implementation was inconsistent and did not follow evidence-based approaches in implementation science. There was also a lack of patient input in creating implementation strategies, suggesting a need for patient-centered approaches to PROM implementation. Frameworks created from these results can be used to develop evidence-based PROM implementation initiatives for gender-affirming care and have potential generalizability for other clinical areas interested in implementing PROMs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Jain reported receiving grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, British Association of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons, and AOUK&I Research and Professional Development outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure.
Figure.. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Diagram of Study Selection
PROM indicates patient-reported outcome measure. aReference citations for included studies are available in eAppendix 2 in Supplement 1.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Weldring T, Smith SMS. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights. 2013;6:61-68. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013;346:f167. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f167 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Snyder CF, Blackford AL, Aaronson NK, et al. Can patient-reported outcome measures identify cancer patients’ most bothersome issues? J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(9):1216-1220. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.33.2080 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chen J, Ou L, Hollis SJ. A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:211. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-211 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nelson EC, Eftimovska E, Lind C, Hager A, Wasson JH, Lindblad S. Patient reported outcome measures in practice. BMJ. 2015;350:g7818. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7818 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types