A systematic review of qualitative studies examining barriers and facilitators to orthopaedic surgeon engagement with patient-reported outcome measures data

被引:0
作者
Heath, Emma L. [1 ,2 ]
Harris, Ian A. [3 ,4 ]
Romero, Lorena [5 ]
Ackerman, Ilana N. [1 ]
机构
[1] Monash Univ, Sch Publ Hlth & Prevent Med, 553 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
[2] South Australian Hlth & Med Res Inst, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
[3] UNSW Sydney, UNSW Med & Hlth, Sch Clin Med, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
[4] Whitlam Orthopaed Res Ctr, Ingham Inst Appl Med Res, 1 Campbell St, Liverpool, NSW 2170, Australia
[5] Alfred Hosp, 55 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
关键词
Patient-reported outcomes; Orthopaedic surgeon engagement; Systematic review; COLLECTION; CARE; HIP;
D O I
10.1186/s41687-024-00820-x
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
BackgroundOrthopaedic surgeon engagement with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data has not been comprehensively evaluated, despite increasing uptake of orthopaedic PROMs programmes globally. The aim of this review was to systematically identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative evidence on barriers and facilitators to orthopaedic surgeons' engagement with PROMs data and their use of these data to support clinical practice.MethodsSix databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE CENTRAL, PSYCINFO, CINAHL and EMCARE) were searched from January 2000-March 2024 to identify potentially eligible qualitative studies. Established systematic review methods were used for screening and data extraction, applying PRISMA guidelines. Quality assessment was undertaken using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool for qualitative research.ResultsEight studies were eligible for inclusion; of these, five studies were qualitative and three studies were mixed-method designs incorporating a qualitative component. Three studies were specific to orthopaedic surgeons and the remaining five studies comprised of mixed samples of health professionals including orthopaedic surgeons. Only one study was classified as being of high methodological quality. Key barrier themes for orthopaedic surgeons were logistical issues, difficulty interpreting and understanding PROMs, and scepticism of the value of PROMs in clinical care. Key enabler themes included improvements to PROMs infrastructure, surgeon education around the potential value, uses and interpretation of PROMs data, aggregate reporting of PROMs data and early involvement of surgeons in the planning and development of PROM systems.ConclusionWhile these studies highlight some practical considerations and opportunities that can be addressed through clinician education, there is little high-quality evidence on factors that influence orthopaedic surgeon engagement with PROMs data. Robust qualitative research is needed to better inform tailored support and assist surgeons in integrating PROMs data within orthopaedic care.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]   Use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) by orthopedic surgeons in Saudi Arabia [J].
Alshehri, Fayez ;
Alarabi, Abdulaziz ;
Alharthi, Mohammed ;
Alanazi, Thamer ;
Alohali, Ahmed ;
Alsaleem, Mohammad .
JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND RESEARCH, 2020, 15 (01)
[2]  
Aromataris E., 2020, JBI manual for evidence synthesis. 0
[3]   Implementation of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Total Knee Arthroplasty [J].
Ayers, David C. .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2017, 25 :S48-S50
[4]   Surgeon's experiences of receiving peer benchmarked feedback using patient-reported outcome measures: a qualitative study [J].
Boyce, Maria B. ;
Browne, John P. ;
Greenhalgh, Joanne .
IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE, 2014, 9
[5]   The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative research [J].
Boyce, Maria B. ;
Browne, John P. ;
Greenhalgh, Joanne .
BMJ QUALITY & SAFETY, 2014, 23 (06) :508-518
[6]   Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Outpatient Rehabilitation Settings: A Systematic Review of Facilitators and Barriers Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research [J].
Briggs, Matthew S. ;
Rethman, Katherine Kozak ;
Crookes, Justin ;
Cheek, Fern ;
Pottkotter, E. Kristy ;
McGrath, Shana ;
DeWitt, John ;
Harmon-Matthews, Lindsay E. ;
Quatman-Yates, Catherine C. .
ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION, 2020, 101 (10) :1796-1812
[7]   Does Implant Selection Affect Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty? [J].
Campbell, Andrew ;
Emara, Ahmed K. ;
Klika, Alison ;
Piuzzi, Nicolas S. .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2021, 103 (24) :2306-2317
[8]   Perceived benefits and limitations of using patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice with individual patients: a systematic review of qualitative studies [J].
Campbell, Rachel ;
Ju, Angela ;
King, Madeleine T. ;
Rutherford, Claudia .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2022, 31 (06) :1597-1620
[9]   Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues [J].
Churruca, Kate ;
Pomare, Chiara ;
Ellis, Louise A. ;
Long, Janet C. ;
Henderson, Suzanna B. ;
Murphy, Lisa E. D. ;
Leahy, Christopher J. ;
Braithwaite, Jeffrey .
HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2021, 24 (04) :1015-1024
[10]   The routine use of patient reported outcome measures in healthcare settings [J].
Dawson, Jill ;
Doll, Helen ;
Fitzpatrick, Ray ;
Jenkinson, Crispin ;
Carr, Andrew J. .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2010, 340 :464-467