Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31853173›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2019

Core Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and PRO Measures (PROMs) for Polypharmacy Medicines Reviews: A Sequential Mixed-Methods Study.

Grigorios Kotronoulas, Mark Cooper, Bridget Johnston

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Grigorios KotronoulasSchool of Medicine, Dentistry & Nursing, College of Medicine, Veterinary & Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9508-9989
Mark CooperSchool of Medicine, Dentistry & Nursing, College of Medicine, Veterinary & Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4341-2921
Bridget JohnstonSchool of Medicine, Dentistry & Nursing, College of Medicine, Veterinary & Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeProblematic polypharmacy can exaggerate "medicine burden" for the patient. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are key indicators of medicine burden, and PRO measures (PROMs) can help patients articulate their perceptions of medicine burden. We aimed to: (a) evaluate what PROMs currently exist that assess medicine burden, and what PROs they target, and (b) understand patients' experiences with using multiple medicines to establish a core set of most meaningful and relevant PROs for assessment in polypharmacy medicines reviews. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe conducted a prospective, sequential mixed-methods study in two consecutive work phases. Phase 1 involved a rapid review of PROMs, informed by the published PRISMA and COSMIN initiative guidelines. We integrated all evidence in a thematic narrative synthesis. Phase 2 involved cross-sectional, one-to-one, semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, including members of the public and healthcare professionals (HCPs). We conducted thematic content analysis to identify and classify emerging PROs.

resultsIn Phase 1, 13 studies described the development and/or validation of 12 PROMs. The PROMs targeted 14 content domains of adult patients' experiences with prescribed medicines. PROMs varied widely in terms of length, comprehensiveness and psychometric robustness. In Phase 2, all participants (seven members of the public; eight HCPs) agreed on the clinical relevance of PROMs, providing a rich account of justifications. We identified four core PROs: 'Knowledge, information and communication about own medicines'; "Perceptions, views and attitudes about (own) medicines"; "Impact on daily living: Side-effects and practicalities", and "Medicine usage: 'as planned', misuse, abuse, no use".

conclusionWe suggest combining psychometrically robust PROMs or domains across PROMs into a bespoke PROM that addresses comprehensively and succinctly the four core PROs. We recommend a careful implementation process that must involve consultation with all relevant stakeholders, while establishing a clear purpose for collecting a PROM and realistic and ongoing collection at key time-points.

Indexed as

impact on daily livingknowledgemedication experiencesmonitoringperceptionspreferences

Identifiers

PMID31853173
PMCPMC6916699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.