Display options
Cite
Mejdahl CT, Schougaard LMV, Hjollund NH, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in the interaction between patient and clinician - a multi-perspective qualitative study. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020;4(1):3doi: 10.1186/s41687-019-0170-x.
Mejdahl, C. T., Schougaard, L. M. V., Hjollund, N. H., Riiskjær, E., & Lomborg, K. (2020). Patient-reported outcome measures in the interaction between patient and clinician - a multi-perspective qualitative study. Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 4(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-019-0170-x
Mejdahl, Caroline Trillingsgaard, et al. "Patient-reported outcome measures in the interaction between patient and clinician - a multi-perspective qualitative study." Journal of patient-reported outcomes vol. 4,1 (2020): 3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-019-0170-x
Mejdahl CT, Schougaard LMV, Hjollund NH, Riiskjær E, Lomborg K. Patient-reported outcome measures in the interaction between patient and clinician - a multi-perspective qualitative study. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020 Jan 09;4(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s41687-019-0170-x. PMID: 31919602; PMCID: PMC6952477.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020 Jan 09;4(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s41687-019-0170-x.

Patient-reported outcome measures in the interaction between patient and clinician - a multi-perspective qualitative study.

Journal of patient-reported outcomes

Caroline Trillingsgaard Mejdahl, Liv Marit Valen Schougaard, Niels Henrik Hjollund, Erik Riiskjær, Kirsten Lomborg

Affiliations

  1. AmbuFlex/WestChronic, Occupational Medicine, University Research Clinic, Aarhus University, Herning, Gl Landevej 61, DK-7400, Herning, Denmark. [email protected].
  2. The Research Centre for Patient Involvement, Aarhus University & the Central Denmark Region, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, DK-8200, Aarhus, Denmark. [email protected].
  3. AmbuFlex/WestChronic, Occupational Medicine, University Research Clinic, Aarhus University, Herning, Gl Landevej 61, DK-7400, Herning, Denmark.
  4. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Olof Palmes Allé 43-45, DK-8200, Aarhus, Denmark.
  5. DEFACTUM, Social & Health Services and Labour Market, Olof Palmes Allé 15, DK-8200, Aarhus, Central Denmark Region, Denmark.
  6. The Research Centre for Patient Involvement, Aarhus University & the Central Denmark Region, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, DK-8200, Aarhus, Denmark.
  7. Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 82, DK-8200, Aarhus, Denmark.

PMID: 31919602 PMCID: PMC6952477 DOI: 10.1186/s41687-019-0170-x

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This article addresses patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based follow-up used as a substitute for regularly scheduled follow-ups. In PRO-based follow-up, patients' PRO data filled in by the patients at home are used by clinicians as a decision aid to identify those who need clinical attention based on an automated PRO algorithm, clinical attention being either a phone call or a physical consultation. A physical consultation in the outpatient clinic prompted by the patient's PRO is termed a "PRO consultation." In this multi-perspective qualitative study, we explored the influence of patients' self-reported data on patient-clinician interaction during PRO consultations in epilepsy outpatient clinics. Interpretive description was the methodological approach, applying data from participant observations, informal interviews with clinicians, and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and patients.

RESULTS: We found that application and deliberate use of patients' PRO measures can affect patient-clinician interaction, promoting patient involvement in terms of improved communication and increased patient activation. These findings reflect the general patterns that have been reported in the literature. In addition, we found that PRO measures also may induce unmet expectations among some patients that can have a negative effect on patients' experiences of the interaction and their follow-up experience in general. We extracted two thematic patterns that represent PRO measures' potential for patient involvement in the patient-clinician interaction. The first pattern represents enablers, and the second pattern represents barriers for PRO measures to affect patient involvement.

CONCLUSIONS: Applying PRO measures in clinical practice does not automatically enhance the patient-clinician interaction. To strengthen the benefits of PRO measures, the following supplementary clinical initiatives are suggested: summarizing and reporting the PRO measures back to the patient, considering carefully which PRO measures to include, training clinicians and assuring that the patients' introduction to PRO-based follow-up clarifies expectations.

Keywords: Communication; Interpretive description; Outpatient follow-up; Patient-clinician interaction; Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures; Qualitative research

References

  1. J Comp Eff Res. 2016 Aug;5(5):507-19 - PubMed
  2. Am J Kidney Dis. 2019 Aug;74(2):167-178 - PubMed
  3. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018 Sep 5;2:38 - PubMed
  4. BMJ Open. 2014 Jul 22;4(7):e005601 - PubMed
  5. Lancet. 2009 Aug 1;374(9687):369-70 - PubMed
  6. J Support Oncol. 2012 Jul-Aug;10(4):143-8 - PubMed
  7. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jan 26;17(1):83 - PubMed
  8. Qual Life Res. 2009 Feb;18(1):115-23 - PubMed
  9. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Jun;23(6):508-18 - PubMed
  10. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Jun 11;13:211 - PubMed
  11. Qual Life Res. 2016 Mar;25(3):525-34 - PubMed
  12. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Sep 30;21(9):e15856 - PubMed
  13. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2016 Dec;63(12):2181-2188 - PubMed
  14. Interact J Med Res. 2014 Feb 11;3(1):e5 - PubMed
  15. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012 Sep-Oct;62(5):337-47 - PubMed
  16. J Clin Oncol. 2014 May 10;32(14):1480-501 - PubMed
  17. Ann Oncol. 2015 Sep;26(9):1846-58 - PubMed
  18. Br J Community Nurs. 2011 Mar;16(3):146-51 - PubMed
  19. Psychooncology. 2009 Nov;18(11):1129-38 - PubMed
  20. Dermatology. 2007;215(4):315-9 - PubMed
  21. Qual Life Res. 2015 Jul;24(7):1707-18 - PubMed
  22. Med Care. 2013 Aug;51(8 Suppl 3):S73-9 - PubMed
  23. Qual Life Res. 2009 Feb;18(1):99-107 - PubMed
  24. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006 Oct;12(5):559-68 - PubMed
  25. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006 Oct 11;4:79 - PubMed
  26. Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Oct;63(1-2):12-23 - PubMed
  27. Qual Life Res. 2013 Jun;22(5):939-50 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support