Response rates in clinical quality registries and databases that collect patient reported outcome measures: a scoping review
- PMID: 37434146
- PMCID: PMC10337187
- DOI: 10.1186/s12955-023-02155-5
Response rates in clinical quality registries and databases that collect patient reported outcome measures: a scoping review
Abstract
Background: Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are being increasingly introduced in clinical registries, providing a personal perspective on the expectations and impact of treatment. The aim of this study was to describe response rates (RR) to PROMs in clinical registries and databases and to examine the trends over time, and how they change with the registry type, region and disease or condition captured.
Methods: We conducted a scoping literature review of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, in addition to Google Scholar and grey literature. All English studies on clinical registries capturing PROMs at one or more time points were included. Follow up time points were defined as follows: baseline (if available), < 1 year, 1 to < 2 years, 2 to < 5 years, 5 to < 10 years and 10 + years. Registries were grouped according to regions of the world and health conditions. Subgroup analyses were conducted to identify trends in RRs over time. These included calculating average RRs, standard deviation and change in RRs according to total follow up time.
Results: The search strategy yielded 1,767 publications. Combined with 20 reports and four websites, a total of 141 sources were used in the data extraction and analysis process. Following the data extraction, 121 registries capturing PROMs were identified. The overall average RR at baseline started at 71% and decreased to 56% at 10 + year at follow up. The highest average baseline RR of 99% was observed in Asian registries and in registries capturing data on chronic conditions (85%). Overall, the average RR declined as follow up time increased.
Conclusion: A large variation and downward trend in PROMs RRs was observed in most of the registries identified in our review. Formal recommendations are required for consistent collection, follow up and reporting of PROMs data in a registry setting to improve patient care and clinical practice. Further research studies are needed to determine acceptable RRs for PROMs captured in clinical registries.
Keywords: Clinical registries; Patient reported outcome measures; Quality of life; Response rates; Surveys and questionnaires.
© 2023. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no competing interests.
Figures




Similar articles
-
Review of response rates over time in registry-based studies using patient-reported outcome measures.BMJ Open. 2020 Aug 6;10(8):e030808. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030808. BMJ Open. 2020. PMID: 32764078 Free PMC article.
-
Identifying Existing Guidelines, Frameworks, Checklists, and Recommendations for Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR Res Protoc. 2024 May 21;13:e52572. doi: 10.2196/52572. JMIR Res Protoc. 2024. PMID: 38771621 Free PMC article.
-
Collection and Reporting of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Arthroplasty Registries: Multinational Survey and Recommendations.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021 Oct 1;479(10):2151-2166. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001852. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021. PMID: 34288899 Free PMC article.
-
Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures in melanoma clinical quality registries: a systematic review.BMJ Open. 2021 Feb 11;11(2):e040751. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040751. BMJ Open. 2021. PMID: 33574144 Free PMC article.
-
How to routinely collect data on patient-reported outcome and experience measures in renal registries in Europe: an expert consensus meeting.Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2015 Oct;30(10):1605-14. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfv209. Epub 2015 May 16. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2015. PMID: 25982327 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Implementing Systematic Patient-Reported Measures for Chronic Conditions Through the Naveta Value-Based Telemedicine Initiative: Observational Retrospective Multicenter Study.JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2024 Jun 28;12:e56196. doi: 10.2196/56196. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2024. PMID: 38545697 Free PMC article.
-
Implementing paper-based patient-reported outcome collection within outpatient integrative health and medicine.PLoS One. 2024 May 29;19(5):e0303985. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303985. eCollection 2024. PLoS One. 2024. PMID: 38809886 Free PMC article.
-
Development of a Best Practice Guide to Optimise the Reporting of Patient Reported Measures by Clinical Quality Registries for Quality Improvement Purposes.Health Serv Insights. 2025 Aug 22;18:11786329251347343. doi: 10.1177/11786329251347343. eCollection 2025. Health Serv Insights. 2025. PMID: 40860174 Free PMC article.
-
Can 3-month models or observed 3- or 6-month patient-reported outcome measures accurately predict 12-month disability and pain after lumbar decompressive surgery?Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2025 Apr 24;145(1):260. doi: 10.1007/s00402-025-05877-x. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2025. PMID: 40274675
-
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in High-Risk Medical Device Registries: A Scoping Review.Aesthet Surg J Open Forum. 2024 Mar 16;6:ojae015. doi: 10.1093/asjof/ojae015. eCollection 2024. Aesthet Surg J Open Forum. 2024. PMID: 38650972 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Gliklich RE, Dreyer NA. M L: Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User’s Guide. 3rd edition. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 2014, 13. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources