Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHancock, SL
dc.contributor.authorRyan, OF
dc.contributor.authorMarion, V
dc.contributor.authorKramer, S
dc.contributor.authorKelly, P
dc.contributor.authorBreen, S
dc.contributor.authorCadilhac, DA
dc.date.accessioned2021-05-03T01:46:17Z
dc.date.available2021-05-03T01:46:17Z
dc.date.issued2020-01-01
dc.identifierpii: bmjopen-2020-038190
dc.identifier.citationHancock, S. L., Ryan, O. F., Marion, V., Kramer, S., Kelly, P., Breen, S. & Cadilhac, D. A. (2020). Feedback of patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals for comparing health service performance: a scoping review. BMJ OPEN, 10 (11), https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038190.
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11343/272492
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide self-reported patient assessments of their quality of life, daily functioning, and symptom severity after experiencing an illness and having contact with the health system. Feeding back summarised PROs data, aggregated at the health-service level, to healthcare professionals may inform clinical practice and quality improvement efforts. However, little is known about the best methods for providing these summarised data in a way that is meaningful for this audience. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to summarise the emerging approaches to PROs data for 'service-level' feedback to healthcare professionals. SETTING: Healthcare professionals receiving PROs data feedback at the health-service level. DATA SOURCES: Databases selected for the search were Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and targeted web searching. The main search terms included: 'patient-reported outcome measures', 'patient-reported outcomes', 'patient-centred care', 'value-based care', 'quality improvement' and 'feedback'. Studies included were those that were published in English between January 2009 and June 2019. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Data were extracted on the feedback methods of PROs to patients or healthcare providers. A standardised template was used to extract information from included documents and academic publications. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Levels of Evidence for Effectiveness. RESULTS: Overall, 3480 articles were identified after de-duplication. Of these, 19 academic publications and 22 documents from the grey literature were included in the final review. Guiding principles for data display methods and graphical formats were identified. Seven major factors that may influence PRO data interpretation and use by healthcare professionals were also identified. CONCLUSION: While a single best format or approach to feedback PROs data to healthcare professionals was not identified, numerous guiding principles emerged to inform the field.
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherBMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
dc.titleFeedback of patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals for comparing health service performance: a scoping review
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038190
melbourne.affiliation.departmentFlorey Department of Neuroscience and Mental Health
melbourne.affiliation.departmentNursing
melbourne.affiliation.departmentMedicine (Austin & Northern Health)
melbourne.affiliation.facultyMedicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences
melbourne.source.titleBMJ Open
melbourne.source.volume10
melbourne.source.issue11
dc.rights.licenseCC BY-NC
melbourne.elementsid1485975
melbourne.contributor.authorBreen, Sibilah
melbourne.contributor.authorCadilhac, Dominique
melbourne.contributor.authorRyan, Olivia
dc.identifier.eissn2044-6055
melbourne.accessrightsOpen Access


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record