Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen

Welkom bij Scalda & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Scalda heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen.Je kunt de producten hieronder links aanschaffen en rechts inloggen.

» Andere revante producten voor Scalda studenten en medewerkers.

Registreer

Schaf de BSL Academy aan: 

BSL Academy mbo AG

Eenmaal aangeschaft kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Heb je een vraag, neem dan contact op met Jan van der Velden.

Login

Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

02-11-2021

Clinicians’ perspectives on the integration of electronic patient-reported outcomes into dermatology clinics: a qualitative study

Auteurs: Vanina L. Taliercio, Ashley M. Snyder, Allison M. Biggs, Jacob Kean, Rachel Hess, Kristina Callis Duffin, Amy M. Cizik, Aaron M. Secrest

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 6/2022

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Background

Skin conditions can have profound negative symptomatic and psychological effects. Failure to address these effects can lead to poor treatment adherence and/or patient dissatisfaction. Despite patient-reported outcome (PRO) use being highly recommended, real-world adoption has been slow.

Objectives

To assess clinicians’ perceived facilitators and barriers to using PROs in daily practice.

Methods

We conducted in-person semi-structured interviews with 19 clinicians and thematic analysis of transcripts.

Results

Three main themes emerged: (1) clinicians’ attitudes about the value of Skindex-16 in daily practice, (2) patient attitudes influencing clinicians’ use of Skindex-16, and (3) clinicians’ perceptions of their ability to use PROs successfully for clinical care. Clinicians recognized benefits to using Skindex-16, such as revealing patients’ hidden concerns and highlighting discrepancies with the clinician’s severity assessments. Conversely, clinicians also identified limitations, such as time constraints and lack of relevance for some skin conditions. Patient complaints about PRO relevance have influenced clinicians’ use of Skindex-16 negatively. Finally, some clinicians recognized the need for more training in score interpretation and implementation strategies for optimal clinical flow.

Conclusions

While most clinicians believed PROs like Skindex-16 can be useful for patient care, barriers need to be addressed to make PROs more practical for routine clinical care.
vorige artikel Patient-level barriers and facilitators to completion of patient-reported outcomes measures
volgende artikel Knowledge translation resources to support the use of quality of life assessment tools for the care of older adults living at home and their family caregivers
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Smith, P. G., Morrow, R. H., & Ross, D. A. (2015). Field trials of health interventions: A toolbox. In P. G. Smith, R. H. Morrow, & D. A. Ross (Eds.), Chapter 12, Outcome measures and case definition. OUP Oxford.
2.
Bhosle, M. J., Kulkarni, A., Feldman, S. R., & Balkrishnan, R. (2006). Quality of life in patients with psoriasis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 35.CrossRef
3.
Choi, J., & Koo, J. Y. (2003). Quality of life issues in psoriasis. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 49(2 Suppl), S57–S61.CrossRef
4.
Armstrong, A. W., Robertson, A. D., Wu, J., et al. (2013). Undertreatment, treatment trends, and treatment dissatisfaction among patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in the United States: Findings from the National Psoriasis Foundation surveys, 2003–2011. JAMA Dermatology, 149(10), 1180–1185.CrossRef
5.
Laine, C., & Davidoff, F. (1996). Patient-centered medicine. A professional evolution. JAMA, 275(2), 152–156.CrossRef
6.
Barry, M. J., & Edgman-Levitan, S. (2012). Shared decision making–pinnacle of patient-centered care. New England Journal of Medicine, 366(9), 780–781.CrossRef
7.
Barry, M. J. (2011). Helping patients make better personal health decisions: The promise of patient-centered outcomes research. JAMA, 306(11), 1258–1259.CrossRef
8.
9.
Finlay, A. Y., Salek, M. S., Abeni, D., et al. (2017). Why quality of life measurement is important in dermatology clinical practice: An expert-based opinion statement by the EADV Task Force on Quality of Life. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 31(3), 424–431.CrossRef
10.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. (2006). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims: Draft guidance. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 79.CrossRef
11.
Secrest, A. M., Chren, M. M., Hopkins, Z. H., et al. (2019). Benefits to patient care of electronically capturing patient-reported outcomes in dermatology. British Journal of Dermatology, 181(4), 826–827.CrossRef
12.
Gaufin, M., Hess, R., Hopkins, Z. H., et al. (2020). Practical screening for depression in dermatology: Using technology to improve care. British Journal of Dermatology, 182(3), 786–787.CrossRef
13.
Lohr, K. N., & Zebrack, B. J. (2009). Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: Challenges and opportunities. Quality of Life Research, 18(1), 99–107.CrossRef
14.
Chren, M. M., Lasek, R. J., Sahay, A. P., & Sands, L. P. (2001). Measurement properties of Skindex-16: A brief quality-of-life measure for patients with skin diseases. Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery, 5(2), 105–110.CrossRef
15.
16.
Nielsen, L. K., King, M., Möller, S., et al. (2020). Strategies to improve patient-reported outcome completion rates in longitudinal studies. Quality of Life Research, 29(2), 335–346.CrossRef
17.
Roydhouse, J. K., Gutman, R., Bhatnagar, V., et al. (2019). Analyzing patient-reported outcome data when completion differs between arms in open-label trials: An application of principal stratification. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 28(10), 1386–1394.CrossRef
18.
Biber, J., Ose, D., Reese, J., et al. (2018). Patient reported outcomes—Experiences with implementation in a University Health Care setting. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes., 2(1), 34.CrossRef
19.
Bauer, M. S., Damschroder, L., Hagedorn, H., et al. (2015). An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist. BMC Psychology, 3, 32.CrossRef
20.
Palinkas, L. A. (2014). Qualitative and mixed methods in mental health services and implementation research. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 43(6), 851–861.CrossRef
21.
Luborsky, M. R., & Rubinstein, R. L. (1995). Sampling in qualitative research: Rationale, issues, and methods. Research on Aging, 17(1), 89–113.CrossRef
22.
Conti, A. A., & Gensini, G. F. (2008). Doctor-patient communication: A historical overview. Minerva Medica, 99(4), 411–415.PubMed
23.
24.
Chren, M. M. (2012). The Skindex instruments to measure the effects of skin disease on quality of life. Dermatologic Clinics, 30(2), 231–236.CrossRef
25.
Scholl, I., Zill, J. M., Härter, M., & Dirmaier, J. (2014). An integrative model of patient-centeredness—A systematic review and concept analysis. PLoS One, 9(9), e107828.CrossRef
26.
Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications and theory. Houghton Mifflin.
27.
Talib, T. L., DeChant, P., Kean, J., et al. (2018). A qualitative study of patients’ perceptions of the utility of patient-reported outcome measures of symptoms in primary care clinics. Quality of Life Research, 27(12), 3157–3166.CrossRef
28.
Chun Tie, Y., Birks, M., & Francis, K. (2019). Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers. SAGE Open Medicine, 7, 2050312118822927.CrossRef
29.
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction (2nd ed.). Sage.
30.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.
31.
Houghton, C., Murphy, K., Meehan, B., et al. (2017). From screening to synthesis: Using NVIVO to enhance transparency in qualitative evidence synthesis. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26(5–6), 873–881.CrossRef
32.
Galper, A., Shamai-Rosler, O., Stanger, V., & Zimlichman, E. (2019). PRO (Patient Reported Outcomes) implementation: From vision to reality. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 264, 1839–1840.PubMed
33.
Godin, G., & Kok, G. (1996). The theory of planned behavior: A review of its applications to health-related behaviors. American Journal of Health Promotion, 11(2), 87–98.CrossRef
34.
Hoerger, M. (2010). Participant dropout as a function of survey length in internet-mediated university studies: Implications for study design and voluntary participation in psychological research. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking., 13(6), 697–700.CrossRef
35.
Rolstad, S., Adler, J., & Rydén, A. (2011). Response burden and questionnaire length: Is shorter better? A review and meta-analysis. Value Health, 14(8), 1101–1108.CrossRef
36.
Santana, M. J., Haverman, L., Absolom, K., et al. (2015). Training clinicians in how to use patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice. Quality of Life Research, 24(7), 1707–1718.CrossRef
37.
Brundage, M. D., Smith, K. C., Little, E. A., et al. (2015). Communicating patient-reported outcome scores using graphic formats: Results from a mixed-methods evaluation. Quality of Life Research, 24(10), 2457–2472.CrossRef
38.
Snyder, C. F., Smith, K. C., Bantug, E. T., et al. (2017). What do these scores mean? Presenting patient-reported outcomes data to patients and clinicians to improve interpretability. Cancer, 123(10), 1848–1859.CrossRef
39.
Smith, K. C., Brundage, M. D., Tolbert, E., et al. (2016). Engaging stakeholders to improve presentation of patient-reported outcomes data in clinical practice. Supportive Care in Cancer, 24(10), 4149–4157.CrossRef
40.
Hewitt, R. M., Pattinson, R., Cordingley, L., et al. (2021). Implementation of the PsoWell™ model for the management of people with complex psoriasis. Acta Dermato-Venereologica, 101(4), adv00445.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Clinicians’ perspectives on the integration of electronic patient-reported outcomes into dermatology clinics: a qualitative study
Auteurs
Vanina L. Taliercio
Ashley M. Snyder
Allison M. Biggs
Jacob Kean
Rachel Hess
Kristina Callis Duffin
Amy M. Cizik
Aaron M. Secrest
Publicatiedatum
02-11-2021
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 6/2022
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-03030-w

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2022

Perceived benefits and limitations of using patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice with individual patients: a systematic review of qualitative studies

  • Review

Association amongst social support inside or outside the family and depression symptoms: longitudinal study of urban–rural differences in China

Knowledge translation resources to support the use of quality of life assessment tools for the care of older adults living at home and their family caregivers

  • Open Access

Feasibility of the EQ-5D in the elderly population: a systematic review of the literature

  • Open Access
  • Review

Social support and health-related quality of life among the oldest old — longitudinal evidence from the multicenter prospective AgeCoDe-AgeQualiDe study

  • Open Access

Greater mastery is associated with lower depression risk in a large international cohort of people with multiple sclerosis over 2.5 years

  • Open Access