Table 2 Summary of main findings relating to the purpose, scope and practical considerations of Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) collection
Recommended step for planning implementation of PROMs | Findings |
|---|---|
Purpose | • Most PROMs (90%) were used for the purpose of research as an endpoint in a study |
• Most clinical specialties (71%) used PROMs in clinical care to inform patient-provider decisions | |
Scope | • Specific PROMs were more commonly used than generic PROMs in research (83% vs. 65% of projects), quality improvement (69% vs. 54% of registries) and clinical care (75% vs. 50% of clinical specialties) |
• PROMs were mostly used to measure both body function and activity limitation in research (93% of projects), quality improvement (100% of registries), and clinical care (81% of clinical specialties) | |
• The EQ-5D was the most commonly used generic PROM across all purposes and clinical specialties | |
Practical Considerations | • PROMs typically took ≤ 5 min to complete (58%) |
• PROMs were mostly paper-based and administered face-to-face (56%) or via a combination of face-to-face and phone (27%) | |
• There were differences in timing of PROM administration between hospital and community services; PROMs were typically administered on discharge from community services (80%), while hospital services had longer follow-up, with PROMs administered 1–6 months (60%) or greater than 6 months (40%) following discharge |