Cookies?
Library Header Image
LSE Research Online LSE Library Services

A cross-sectional analysis of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Core Outcome Sets reveals overlap on target outcome domains but lack of harmonization for recommended instruments

Ciani, Oriana, Salcher-Konrad, Maximilian ORCID: 0000-0002-5628-5266, Meregaglia, Michela, Smith, Kathrine, Gorst, Sarah L, Dodd, Susanna, Williamson, Paula R and Fattore, Giovanni (2021) A cross-sectional analysis of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Core Outcome Sets reveals overlap on target outcome domains but lack of harmonization for recommended instruments. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. ISSN 0895-4356 (In Press)

[img] Text (A cross-sectional analysis of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Core Outcome) - Accepted Version
Pending embargo until 1 January 2100.

Download (1MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

Objective There is no comprehensive assessment of which patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are recommended in core outcome sets (COS), and how they should be measured. The aims of this study are to review COS that include patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), identify their target health domains, main characteristics, and their overlap within and across different disease areas. Study Design and Setting We selected COS studies collected in a publicly available database that included at least one recommended PROM. We gathered information on study setting, disease area, and targeted outcome domains. Full-text of recommended instruments were obtained, and an analysis of their characteristics and content performed. We classified targeted domains according to a predefined 38-item taxonomy. Results Overall, we identified 94 COS studies that recommended 323 unique instruments, of which: 87% were included in only one COS; 77% were disease-specific; 1.5% preferencebased; and 61% corresponded to a full questionnaire. Most of the instruments covered broad health-related constructs, such as global quality of life (25%), physical functioning (22%), emotional functioning and wellbeing (7%). Conclusion The wealth of recommended instruments observed even within disease areas does not fit with a vision of systematic, harmonized collection of PROM data in COS within and across disease areas.

Item Type: Article
Official URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-c...
Additional Information: © 2021 Elsevier Inc
Divisions: Personal Social Services Research Unit
Subjects: R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine
Date Deposited: 02 Mar 2021 12:45
Last Modified: 04 May 2021 23:15
URI: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/108932

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics