Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Management of Advanced CKD: A Qualitative Study

被引:37
|
作者
Aiyegbusi, Olalekan Lee [1 ,2 ]
Kyte, Derek [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Cockwell, Paul [1 ,5 ]
Marshall, Tom [1 ,2 ]
Dutton, Mary [5 ]
Walmsley-Allen, Natalie [5 ]
Slade, Anita [1 ,2 ]
McMullan, Christel [1 ,2 ]
Calvert, Melanie [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Birmingham, Ctr Patient Reported Outcomes Res, Birmingham, W Midlands, England
[2] Univ Birmingham, Inst Appl Hlth Res, Birmingham, W Midlands, England
[3] Univ Hosp Birmingham NHS Fdn Trust, NIHR Birmingham Biomed Res Ctr, Birmingham, W Midlands, England
[4] Univ Birmingham, Birmingham, W Midlands, England
[5] Univ Hosp Birmingham NHS Fdn Trust, Dept Renal Med, Queen Elizabeth Hosp Birmingham, Birmingham, W Midlands, England
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
CHRONIC KIDNEY-DISEASE; DATA SATURATION; SYMPTOM BURDEN; OF-LIFE; CARE; DEPRESSION; EXPERIENCE;
D O I
10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.02.011
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Rationale & Objective: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) can substantially affect patients' healthrelated quality of life. Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) may capture symptoms and health-related quality of life and assist in the management of CKD. This study explored patient and clinician views on the use of a renal ePROM system. Study Design: Qualitative study. Setting & Participants: 12 patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD (non-dialysis dependent); 22 clinicians (6 CKD community nurses, 1 clinical psychologist, 10 nephrologists, 3 specialist registrars, and 2 renal surgeons) in the United Kingdom. Analytical Approach: Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussion during which patients received paper versions of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36 and the Integrated Patient Outcome Scale-Renal to exemplify the type of content that could be included in an ePROM. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts. Results: 4 themes were identified: (1) general opinions of PROMs, (2) potential benefits and applications of an ePROM system, (3) practical considerations for the implementation of ePROMs, and (4) concerns, barriers, and facilitators. Patients were willing to complete ePROMs on a regular basis as part of their care despite clinician concerns about patient burden. Patients assessed the questionnaires favorably. Clinicians suggested that the extent of adoption of renal ePROM systems in routine clinical settings should be based on evidence of significant impact on patient outcomes. Clinicians were concerned that an ePROM system may raise patient expectations to unrealistic levels and expose clinicians to the risk for litigation. Patients and clinicians identified potential benefits and highlighted issues and concerns that need to be addressed to ensure the successful implementation of the renal ePROM system. Limitations: Transferability of the findings may be limited because only English-speaking participants were recruited to the study. Conclusions: A renal ePROM system may play a supportive role in the routine clinical management of patients with advanced CKD if the concerns of clinicians and patients can be sufficiently addressed.
引用
收藏
页码:167 / 178
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Quantifying the patient experience with patient-reported outcome measures
    Lapin, Brittany
    Bautista, Joceyln
    Bae, Charles
    Katzan, Irene
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2017, 26 (01) : 98 - 98
  • [42] A QUALITATIVE INTERVIEW STUDY TO EXPLORE THE PATIENT EXPERIENCE OF LOCALLY ADVANCED OR METASTATIC PANCREATIC CANCER AND EXPLORE THE CONTENT OF PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES
    Degboe, A.
    Kitchen, H.
    Aldhouse, N., V
    Trigg, A.
    Heiman, J. M.
    Narang, A.
    Hodgin, M.
    Johnson, C.
    Hailing, K.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2017, 20 (09) : A454 - A454
  • [43] Using patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures to elevate the quality of healthcare
    Casaca, Pedro
    Schafer, Willemijn
    Nunes, Ana Beatriz
    Sousa, Paulo
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR QUALITY IN HEALTH CARE, 2023, 35 (04)
  • [44] Patient-reported outcome measures and qualitative research in dermatology: the quest for authenticity
    Apfelbacher, C. J.
    Nelson, P. A.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY, 2017, 176 (02) : 285 - 287
  • [45] Endocrinologists' use of patient-reported outcome measures in the care of people with diabetes: A qualitative study
    Nielsen, B. K.
    Terkildsen, M. D.
    Jensen, A. L.
    Pedersen, M. Z.
    Hollesen, M. R.
    Lomborg, K.
    [J]. DIABETES EPIDEMIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, 2023, 12
  • [46] Scale Linking to Enable Patient-Reported Outcome Performance Measures Assessed with Different Patient-Reported Outcome Measures
    Katzan, Irene L.
    Fan, Youran
    Griffith, Sandra D.
    Crane, Paul K.
    Thompson, Nicolas R.
    Cella, David
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2017, 20 (08) : 1143 - 1149
  • [47] Patient Compliance in Assessing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures after Urologic Surgery
    Gruene, Britta
    Menold, Hanna
    Lenhart, Maximilian
    Muehlbauer, Julia
    Walach, Margarete T.
    Waldbillig, Frank
    Neuberger, Manuel
    Nuhn, Philipp
    Michel, Maurice S.
    Koenig, Julian
    Kriegmair, Maximilian C.
    Wessels, Frederik
    [J]. UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2023, 107 (03) : 280 - 287
  • [48] Acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures in women with pelvic organ prolapse: a qualitative study
    Ruseckaite, Rasa
    Jayasinghe, Randi
    Dean, Joanne
    Daly, Oliver
    Ahern, Susannah
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2022, 31 : S87 - S87
  • [49] Chiropractors' views on the use of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: a qualitative study
    Holmes, Michelle M.
    Bishop, Felicity L.
    Newell, David
    Field, Jonathan
    Lewith, George
    [J]. CHIROPRACTIC & MANUAL THERAPIES, 2018, 26
  • [50] Patient-reported outcome measures in oncology: a qualitative study of the healthcare professional’s perspective
    Caitlin Graupner
    S. O. Breukink
    S. Mul
    D. Claessens
    A. H. M. Slok
    M. L. Kimman
    [J]. Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021, 29 : 5253 - 5261