IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v8y2015i4p293-299.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient-Centered Care and Patient-Reported Measures: Let’s Look Before We Leap

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Miller
  • Carolyn Steele Gray
  • Kerry Kuluski
  • Cheryl Cott

Abstract

This commentary focuses on patient-reported measures as tools to support patient-centered care for patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). We argue that those using patient-reported measures in care management or evaluation of services for MCC patients should do so in recognition of the challenges involved in treating them. MCC patient care is challenging because (1) it is difficult to specify the causes of particular symptoms; (2) assessment of many important symptoms relies on subjective report; and (3) patients require care from a variety of providers. Due to the multiple domains of health affected in single individuals, and the large variation in needs, care that is holistic and individualized (i.e. patient-centered) is appropriate for MCC patients. However, due to the afore-mentioned challenges, it is important to carefully consider what this care entails and how practical contexts shape it. Patient-centered care for MCC patients implies continuous, dialogic patient–provider relationships, and the formulation of coherent and adaptive multi-disciplinary care protocols. We identify two broadly defined contextual influences on the nature and quality of these processes and their outputs: (1) busy practice settings and (2) fragmented information technology. We then identify several consequences that may result from inattention to these contextual influences upon introduction of patient-reported measure applications. To maximize the benefits, and minimize the harms of patient-reported measure use, we encourage policy makers and providers to attend carefully to these and other important contextual factors before, during and after the introduction of patient-reported measure initiatives. Copyright The Author(s) 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Miller & Carolyn Steele Gray & Kerry Kuluski & Cheryl Cott, 2015. "Patient-Centered Care and Patient-Reported Measures: Let’s Look Before We Leap," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(4), pages 293-299, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:8:y:2015:i:4:p:293-299
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-014-0095-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s40271-014-0095-7
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-014-0095-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Greenhalgh, Joanne & Long, Andrew F & Flynn, Rob, 2005. "The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: lack of impact or lack of theory?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 833-843, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kirstie L. Haywood & Roger Wilson & Sophie Staniszewska & Sam Salek, 2016. "Using PROMs in Healthcare: Who Should Be in the Driving Seat—Policy Makers, Health Professionals, Methodologists or Patients?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(6), pages 495-498, December.
    2. Mohamed Boucekine & Laurent Boyer & Karine Baumstarck & Aurelie Millier & Badih Ghattas & Pascal Auquier & Mondher Toumi, 2015. "Exploring the Response Shift Effect on the Quality of Life of Patients with Schizophrenia," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(3), pages 388-397, April.
    3. Greenhalgh, Joanne & Flynn, Rob & Long, Andrew F. & Tyson, Sarah, 2008. "Tacit and encoded knowledge in the use of standardised outcome measures in multidisciplinary team decision making: A case study of in-patient neurorehabilitation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 183-194, July.
    4. Rosalba Rosato & Silvia Testa & Antonio Bertolotto & Paolo Confalonieri & Francesco Patti & Alessandra Lugaresi & Maria Grazia Grasso & Anna Toscano & Andrea Giordano & Alessandra Solari, 2016. "Development of a Short Version of MSQOL-54 Using Factor Analysis and Item Response Theory," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-15, April.
    5. Sophie Staniszewska & Kirstie Haywood & Jo Brett & Liz Tutton, 2012. "Patient and Public Involvement in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(2), pages 79-87, June.
    6. A. Awad & Lakshmi Voruganti, 2012. "Measuring Quality of Life in Patients with Schizophrenia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 183-195, March.
    7. Annie Madden & Max Hopwood & Joanne Neale & Carla Treloar, 2019. "Acceptability of Patient-Reported Outcome and Experience Measures for Hepatitis C Treatment Among People Who Use Drugs," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(2), pages 259-265, April.
    8. Yining Xu & Xin Li & Zhihong Sun & Yang Song & Julien S. Baker & Yaodong Gu, 2021. "Adjusted Indirect and Mixed Comparisons of Interventions for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) of Disabled Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-29, March.
    9. Gro Hilde Ramsdal & Rolf Wynn, 2022. "Theoretical Basis for a Group Intervention Aimed at Preventing High School Dropout: The Case of ‘Guttas Campus’," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-14, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:8:y:2015:i:4:p:293-299. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.