Prioritizing patient-reported outcome measures for routine collection in rheumatoid arthritis: An integrated consensus-building process with patients and health care providers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Effective clinical use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) hinges on selecting appropriate measures.The aim of this study was to establish priorities for PROM routine collection in RA care at a health-system level based on patient and provider preferences.Methods: Candidate PROMs were identified through an environmental scan.We adopted a dual-panel consensus-building approach with a patient-exclusive panel, and separate engagement with rheumatology healthcare providers (HCPs).Consensus among patients with RA was established via a modified Delphi process, co-led with two patient partners.HCPs were engaged in a rating and discussion exercise with two groups of providers from academic centres.Patient-panel consensus was achieved if median ratings on a 9-point Likert scale were 7 in all 3 criteria (importance, content validity and feasibility) and results informed HCP discussions for final selection.Results: 15 patients with RA participated in the Delphi rounds and 22 HCPs participated in a rating exercise followed by two group discussions attended by a total of 43 rheumatologists.From an initial set of 15 candidate PROMs, 9 were rated highly ( 7) across all three criteria in Round 3 by patients.Among these, the PROMIS Physical Function 10a ranked highest.HCP feedback suggests a preference for PROMs that align with clinical documentation needs, including insurance forms for advanced therapies and disability claims. Conclusion:A measure of physical function achieved a high priority from the patient panel, and it also supports clinical documentation needs of HCPs, and will thus be an initial implementation focus. Keywords. rheumatoid arthritis patient-reported outcome measure Quality of CareOver the past half century, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been widely and effectively used alongside clinical, imaging, and laboratory assessments to evaluate and manage health outcomes in individuals living with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). [1][2]2][3][4] Their integration into clinical care has supported a patient-centered approach and enhanced communication between patients and providers. 5,6These benefits extend to clinicians and health systems by enabling consistent disease monitoring over time 5 and supporting quality improvement initiatives 7,8 that identify unmet needs at the systems-level to better inform policy and resource allocation decisions.Despite their proven value, the widespread implementation of PROMs in RA care is hindered by a lack of consensus on which specific measures are best suited for routine use.This uncertainty may reflect variation in patients, providers, and health systems valuing different aspects of care that best serve both RA patient needs and clinical workflows.In the context of increasing interest in value-based care and the development of learning health systems, 9,10 identifying consensus on PROMs that meet both clinical and patient needs is an important step toward
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».