Medical Writing Observational Studies Patient-reported outcomes: How useful are they?
emwa-autumn-2017-cover-image

Volume 26, Issue 3 - Observational Studies

Patient-reported outcomes: How useful are they?

Abstract

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are any report on the status of a patient’s health condition as told by the patient him or herself or through an interview, without any interpretation by a clinician or anyone else. They generate information on those aspects of health, disease, and treatment that are only known to the patient suffering from the condition, and include any assessment of symptoms, functional status, psychological and social well-being, health related quality of life, adherence, persistence, satisfaction, or preferences for healthcare interventions from the perspective of the individual. In clinical research, PROs are endpoints of observational studies and provide data on patients in real life situations. The appropriate selection of PRO and of PRO instruments as well as the accurate interpretation and reporting of PRO results are essential to the reliability of evidence generated. PRO assessment has become a vital component in the design of patient registries, which should serve to improve the provision of healthcare, to inform decision makers, and to gain knowledge on the true effects of treatments on patients in the long term.

Download the full article

References

  1. Deshpande PR, Rajan S, Sudeepthi BL, Abdul Nazir CP. Patient-reported outcomes: A new era in clinical research. Pers Clin Res 2011;2:137–44. [cited 2017 July 5]. Available from: Available from: https://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3227331/#!po=6.25000
  2. Willke RJ. Measuring the value of treatment to patients: Patient-reported outcomes in drug development. Am Health Drug Benefits 2008;1:34–40. Available from: http://
  3. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims; 2009 [cited 2017 June 10]. Available from Available from: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm193282.pdf
  4. European Medicines Agency. Reflection paper on the use of patient reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies, 2014 [cited 2017 June 10]. Available from Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2014/06/WC500168852.pdf
  5. McKenna SP. Measuring patient-reported outcomes: moving beyond misplaced common sense to hard science. BMC Medicine. 2011;9:86. Available from Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170214/pdf/1741-7015-9- 86.pdf
  6. University of Oxford. Instrument Types. Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Group;2017. [cited 2017 July 5]. Available from Available from: http://phi.uhce.ox.ac.uk/inst_types.php
  7. Coons Sj, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD et al. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patientreported outcome (pro) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Value Health 2009;12:419–29. Available from Available from: https://www.ispor.org/workpaper/patient_reported_outcomes/Coons.pdf
  8. Dueck AC, Sloan JA. Meeting on the FDA draft guidance on patient-reported outcomes. Value Health 2007;10:S64–5. Available from: http://
  9. Frost MH, Reeve BB, Liepa AM, Stauffer JW, Hays RD; Mayo. FDA Patient- Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures? Value Health 2007;10:S94–S105. Available from: http://
  10. Blinman P, King M, Norman R, Viney R, Stockler MR. Preferences for cancer treatments: an overview of methods and applications in oncology. Ann Oncol 2012;23 (5):1104–10. Available from: http://
  11. Cheung KL, Wijnen BFM, Hollin IL et al. Using best–worst scaling to investigate preferences in health care. Pharmacoecon 2016;34:1195-1209. Available from: http://
  12. Kaplan RM, Frosch DL. Decision Making in medicine and health care. Ann Rev Clin Psychol 2005;1:525-56. Available from Available from: http://rmkaplan.bol.ucla.edu/Robert_M._Kaplan/2005_Publications_files/395-%20AnnRevClinPsycy.pdf
  13. Arnold D, Girling A, Stevens A, Lilford R. Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: review and empirical analysis. BMJ. 2009;339(b2):688. Available on Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2714630/
  14. ePROVIDE. Online support for clinical outcomes assessment; 2017.[cited 2017 July 5] Available from Available from: http://www.proqolid.org
  15. OLGA. The On-line Guide to Quality of Life Assessment; 2012 [cited 2017 July 5] Available from Available from: http://www.olga-qol.com/
  16. Health Measures. PROMIS; 2017 [cited 2017 July 5] Available from Available from: http://www.nihpromis.org/
  17. Morillas C, Feliciano R, Catalina PF, Ponte C, Botella M, Rodrigues J et al. Patients’ and physicians’ preferences for type 2 diabetes mellitus treatments in Spain and Portugal: a discrete choice experiment. Patient Prefer Adherence 2015;9:1443-58 Available from: http://
  18. Dilla T, Lizan L, Paz S, Garrido P, Avendaño C, Cruz-Hernandez JJ et al. Do new cancer drugs offer good value for money? The perspectives of oncologists, health care policy makers, patients, and the general population. Patient Preference and Adherence 2016; 10. Available from Available from: https://www.dovepress.com/do-newcancer-drugs-offer-good-value-for-moneythe-perspectives-of-onc-peer-reviewedarticle-PPA
  19. Flores LT, Bennett AV, Law EB, Hajj C, Griffith MP, Goodman KA. Patientreported outcomes vs. clinician symptom reporting during chemoradiation for rectal cancer. Gastroint Cancer Res 2012;5: 119-24 Available from: http://
  20. Szende A, Leidy NK, Revicki D. Health- Related Quality of Life and other patientreported outcomes in the European centralized drug regulatory process: a review of guidance documents and performed authorisations of medicinal products 1995 to 2003. Value Health 2005;8: 534-48. Available from: http://
  21. Gnanasakthy A, Mordin M, Clark M, DeMuro C, Sheri F, Copley-Merriman C. A review of patient-reported outcomes labels in the United States: 2006 to 2010. Value Health 2012;15:437-42. Available from: http://
  22. Gnanasakthy A, Mordin M, Evans E, Doward L, DeMuro C. A review of patientreported outcomes labeling in the United States (2011-2015). Value Health 2016;20:420-9. Available from: http://
  23. Ashley L, Jones H, Thomas J et al. Integrating patient reported outcomes with clinical cancer registry data: a feasibility study of the electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes From Cancer Survivors (ePOCS) system. J Med Internet Res 2013;15:e230. Available from: http://
  24. Franklin PD, Harrold L, Ayers DC. Incorporating patient-reported outcomes in total joint arthroplasty registries: challenges and opportunities. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013;471:3482-8. Available from: http://
  25. Doward LC, McKenna SP. Defining patient-reported outcomes. Value Health 2004;7: S4-8. Available from: http://
  26. Gliklich RE, Dreyer NA, Leavy MB, editors. Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User’s Guide [Internet]. 3rd edition.Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2014. Available from Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK208628/

Search

Articles

Observations and Observational Studies
President's Message
EMWA News
RCTs: Can the treatment work? Patient registries: Does the treatment work?
Odd cases and risky cohorts: Measures of risk and association in observational studies
Guidance for the design and analysis of observational studies: The STRengthening Analytical Thinking for Observational Studies (STRATOS) initiative
Guidelines for disclosing the results from observational trials
Registration and ethics committee approval for observational studies: Current status and way forward
Regulatory submissions of non-interventional post-authorisation safety studies
Reporting non-interventional post-authorisation safety studies (NI-PASS)
Patient-reported outcomes: How useful are they?
EMA releases the revised Good Pharmacovigilance Practices Module V – updated guidance on risk management plans
Mentoring tomorrow’s medical writers
ICMJE to mandate data sharing statements
News from the EMA
Journal Watch
Getting Your Foot in the Door
In the Bookstores
Regulatory Matters
Medical Communications
The Webscout
Teaching Medical Writing
Good Writing Practice
Out on Our Own

Member Login

Links

The Write Stuff Archive Contact Instructions for Authors Feature Article Template (Word) Journal Policies

Editoral Board

Editor-in-Chief:

Co-Editor:

Managing Editor

  • Victoria White (Tampa, Florida, USA) Email: MEW@emwa.org
show all +

Associate Editors:

Section Editors:

Ad-hoc Editors:

  • Amy Whereat (SpeaktheSpeech Consulting, Asnieres sur Seine, France)

Editor Emeritus: