6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Developing theory-informed knowledge translation strategies to facilitate the use of patient-reported outcome measures in interdisciplinary low back pain clinical practices in Quebec: mixed methods study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          There is a growing interest among healthcare providers (HCPs) to use Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in clinical care. PROMs can help improve patient-care provider communication and may be used to inform the need for interdisciplinary care for Low Back Pain (LBP). However, PROM implementation to support clinical decision-making is complex and requires knowledge translation (KT) interventions that will overcome barriers to using PROMs in interdisciplinary clinical settings.

          Objectives

          to 1) identify potential barriers and enablers to using PROMs in primary care LBP clinical practice from the perspective of healthcare team members, and 2) develop a theory-based tailored KT intervention to facilitate the use of PROMs in interdisciplinary clinical practice.

          Methods

          We invited 25 HCPs working in an interdisciplinary team to complete a self-administered survey designed based on the Theoretical Domain Framework (TDF) to identify the barriers and enablers to using PROM scores in LBP clinical practice. The questionnaire consisted of 30 questions rated on a 5-point Likert scale (quantitative) and included open-ended questions (qualitative). Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed to estimate the frequency of barriers and enablers. Findings were then reviewed by a panel of four KT experts who mapped behaviour change techniques to barriers identified that informed the design of a KT intervention.

          Results

          Eighteen HCPs responded to the survey. Factors identified as likely to restrict the use of PROM scores included knowledge, skills, social/professional role and identity, goals, decision processes, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources, behavioural regulation, and social influence. A multi-component evidence-based KT intervention was proposed by the panel of experts to address these barriers: a training workshop; educational materials; and use of PROM score reports to HCPs that were all delivered by an opinion leader.

          Conclusion

          The routine use of PROMs in clinical practice may optimize the quality of LBP care and improve patients’ outcomes. The proposed multi-component KT intervention is expected to be an effective strategy to increase HCPs’ ability to integrate PROMs into clinical decision-making and to engage patients in their care.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature.

          The purpose of this paper is to summarize the best evidence regarding the impact of providing patient-reported outcomes (PRO) information to health care professionals in daily clinical practice. Systematic review of randomized clinical trials (Medline, Cochrane Library; reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and requests to authors and experts in the field). Out of 1,861 identified references published between 1978 and 2007, 34 articles corresponding to 28 original studies proved eligible. Most trials (19) were conducted in primary care settings performed in the USA (21) and assessed adult patients (25). Information provided to professionals included generic health status (10), mental health (14), and other (6). Most studies suffered from methodologic limitations, including analysis that did not correspond with the unit of allocation. In most trials, the impact of PRO was limited. Fifteen of 23 studies (65%) measuring process of care observed at least one significant result favoring the intervention, as did eight of 17 (47%) that measured outcomes of care. Methodological concerns limit the strength of inference regarding the impact of providing PRO information to clinicians. Results suggest great heterogeneity of impact; contexts and interventions that will yield important benefits remain to be clearly defined.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why?

            Precisely defining the different applications of patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) in clinical practice can be difficult. This is because the intervention is complex and varies amongst different studies in terms of the type of PRO used, how the PRO is fed back, and to whom it is fed back. A theory-driven approach is used to describe six different applications of PROs in clinical practice. The evidence for the impact of these applications on the process and outcomes of care are summarised. Possible explanations for the limited impact of PROs on patient management are then discussed and directions for future research are highlighted. The applications of PROs in clinical practice include screening tools, monitoring tools, as a method of promoting patient-centred care, as a decision aid, as a method of facilitating communication amongst multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), and as a means of monitoring the quality of patient care. Evidence from randomised controlled trials suggests that the use of PROs in clinical practice is valuable in improving the discussion and detection of HRQoL problems but has less of an impact on how clinicians manage patient problems or on subsequent patient outcomes. Many of the reasons for this may lie in the ways in which PROs fit (or do not fit) into the routine ways in which patients and clinicians communicate with each other, how clinicians make decisions, and how healthcare as a whole is organised. Future research needs to identify ways in with PROs can be better incorporated into the routine care of patients by combining qualitative and quantitative methods and adopting appropriate trial designs.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative research.

              To synthesise qualitative studies that investigated the experiences of healthcare professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to improve the quality of care. A qualitative systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed, PsycINFO and CINAHL with no time restrictions. Hand searching was also performed. Eligible studies were evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme toolkit for qualitative studies. A thematic synthesis identified common themes across studies. Study characteristics were examined to explain differences in findings. All healthcare settings. Healthcare professionals. Professionals' views of PROMs after receiving PROMs feedback about individual patients or groups of patients. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators to the use of PROMs emerged within four main themes: collecting and incorporating the data (practical), valuing the data (attitudinal), making sense of the data (methodological) and using the data to make changes to patient care (impact). Professionals value PROMs when they are useful for the clinical decision-making process. Practical barriers to the routine use of PROMs are prominent when the correct infrastructure is not in place before commencing data collection and when their use is disruptive to normal work routines. Technology can play a greater role in processing the information in the most efficient manner. Improvements to the interpretability of PROMs should increase their use. Attitudes to the use of PROMs may be improved by engaging professionals in the planning stage of the intervention and by ensuring a high level of transparency around the rationale for data collection. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                sara.ahmed@mcgill.ca
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                25 August 2020
                25 August 2020
                2020
                : 20
                : 789
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.14709.3b, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8649, School of Physical & Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, , McGill University, ; 3654 Prom Sir-William-Osler, Montréal, QC H3G 1Y5 Canada
                [2 ]GRID grid.440748.b, ISNI 0000 0004 1756 6705, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Department, , Jouf University, ; Sakaka, Jouf Saudi Arabia
                [3 ]GRID grid.14709.3b, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8649, Center for outcome research and evaluation, Clinical Epidemiology, , McGill University Health Center, McGill University, ; Montréal, QC Canada
                [4 ]GRID grid.420709.8, ISNI 0000 0000 9810 9995, Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire en réadaptation (CRIR), , Constance Lethbridge Rehabilitation Center, ; Montréal, QC Canada
                [5 ]RUISSS McGill Centre of Expertise in Chronic Pain, Montréal, QC Canada
                [6 ]GRID grid.14709.3b, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8649, Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, , McGill University, ; Montréal, QC Canada
                [7 ]GRID grid.14848.31, ISNI 0000 0001 2292 3357, Faculté de Médecine, École de réadaptation, , Université de Montréal, ; Montréal, QC Canada
                [8 ]GRID grid.459278.5, ISNI 0000 0004 4910 4652, Institut universitaire sur la réadaptation en déficience physique de Montréal, , Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l’Île-de-Montréal, ; Montreal, QC Canada
                [9 ]GRID grid.421138.d, ISNI 0000 0001 0816 5852, Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire en réadaptation (CRIR), , Institut de réadaptation Gingras-Lindsay-de-Montréal, ; Montréal, QC Canada
                [10 ]GRID grid.231844.8, ISNI 0000 0004 0474 0428, Centre for Global eHealth InnovationCentre for Global eHealth Innovation, , University Health Network, ; Toronto, ON Canada
                [11 ]GRID grid.265703.5, ISNI 0000 0001 2197 8284, Département chiropratique, , Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, ; Trois-Rivières, QC Canada
                Article
                5616
                10.1186/s12913-020-05616-5
                7445906
                32843032
                10c09e1c-bd79-43d8-975c-b84ee86632b1
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 1 February 2020
                : 2 August 2020
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Health & Social care
                patient-reported outcomes,theoretical domain framework,behavioral change techniques,intervention mapping,interdisciplinary team,low back pain

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content76

                Cited by7

                Most referenced authors1,248