Measure what we want: a taxonomy of short generic person-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs)

Benson, Tim

doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000789

Cited by 36 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both measures have been briefly described previously, where the Social Contact measure was referred to as Loneliness and the Loneliness measure as Loneliness (ONS). 21 Both measures share several benefits in comparison with longer established measures: brevity and low reading age, with four items and four response options, which are aggregated to give a single summary score. Mean scores for each item and the summary score are presented on Open access a 0-100 scale (where high is good), facilitating comparisons with other measures of health, which are usually positively scored.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This has been briefly described previously. 21 The final version is shown in figure 1 .…”

Section: Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…R-Outcomes has previously developed several PROMs covering health status, 17 personal well-being, 18 health confidence 19 and patient-reported experience measures. 20 These measures all share a common look and feel, based on the following common principles 21 :…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Development of social contact and loneliness measures with validation in social prescribing

Benson

Seers

Webb³

et al. 2021

BMJ Open Qual

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsThis paper describes two patient-reported measures of social contact and loneliness, which are closely related concepts. The first measure (R-Outcomes Social Contact measure) was developed from scratch, based on customer needs and literature review. It covers emotional and social aspects using positive terms. The second measure (R-Outcomes Loneliness measure) is adapted from the GSS Loneliness Harmonised Standard. Both measures are patient-reported outcome measures, based on patients’ own perception of how they feel.MethodThis development started in 2016 in response to customers’ requests to measure social contact/loneliness for patients in social prescribing projects.Both measures are compared with three other loneliness measures (the GSS Loneliness Harmonised Standard, De Jong Gierveld and Campaign to End Loneliness). Both measures are short (36 and 21 words, respectively). Mean improvement is reported as a positive number on a 0–100 scale (where high is good).We tested the psychometric performance and construct validity of the R-Outcomes Social Contact measure using secondary analysis of anonymised data collected before and after social prescribing interventions in one part of Southern England.ResultsIn the validation study, 728 responses, collected during 2019–2020, were analysed. 90% were over 70 years old and 62% women. Cronbach’s α=0.76, which suggests that it is appropriate to use a single summary score. Mean Social Contact scores before and after social prescribing intervention were 59.9 (before) and 66.7 (after, p<0.001).Exploratory factor analysis shows that measures for social contact, health status, health confidence, patient experience, personal well-being, medication adherence and social determinants of health are correlated but distinct factors. Construct validation shows that the results are consistent with nine hypotheses, based on the loneliness literature.ConclusionThe R-Outcomes Social Contact measure has good psychometric and construct validation results in a population referred to social prescribing. It is complementary to other R-Outcomes measures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This has been briefly described previously. 21 The final version is shown in figure 1 .…”

Section: Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development of social contact and loneliness measures with validation in social prescribing

Benson

Seers

Webb³

et al. 2021

BMJ Open Qual

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It forms part of a large family of PROMs and personreported experience measures, completed by patients (or care home residents) and by staff. 10 HowRu has been validated for use at the individual patient level, 11 and for construct validity in ambulatory care in comparison with EQ-5D, 12 13 and SF-12. 8 Resident assessments were collected at the same time as staff assessments and shared the same bar-code identifier.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of staff and resident health status ratings in care homes

Benson

Bowman

2020

BMJ Open Qual

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMany care home residents cannot self-report their own health status. Previous studies have shown differences between staff and resident ratings. In 2012, we collected 10 168 pairs of health status ratings using the howRu health status measure. This paper examines differences between staff and resident ratings.MethodHowRu is a short generic person-reported outcome measure with four items: pain or discomfort (discomfort), feeling low or worried (distress), limited in what you can do (disability) and require help from others (dependence). A summary score (howRu score) is also calculated. Mean scores are shown on a 0–100 scale. High scores are better than low scores. Differences between resident and staff reports (bias) were analysed at the item and summary level by comparing distributions, analysing correlations and a modification of the Bland-Altman method.Results and conclusionsDistributions are similar superficially but differ statistically. Spearman correlations are between 0.55 and 0.67. For items, more than 92.9% of paired responses are within one class; for the howRu summary score, 66% are within one class. Mean differences (resident score minus staff score) on 0–100 scale are pain and discomfort (−1.11), distress (0.67), discomfort (1.56), dependence (3.92) and howRu summary score (1.26). The variation is not the same for different severities. At higher levels of pain and discomfort, staff rated their discomfort and distress as better than residents. On the other hand, staff rated disability and dependence as worse than did residents. This probably reflects differences in perspectives. Red amber green (RAG) thresholds of 10 and 5 points are suggested for monitoring changes in care home mean scores.

show abstract

“…A possible explanation for these conflicting results lies in the fact that no gold standard exists for measuring health literacy (Berkman et al, 2011). Besides, as a health system is complex and multifaceted, multiple aspects can be measured to understand the impact of health literacy (Benson, 2020). In their systematic review of literature on literacy and health outcomes, DeWalt et al 2004concluded that low literacy is associated with a variety of adverse health conditions such as lower knowledge about health and health care, higher risks of hospitalization, poorer health status and the presence, control or outcomes of some chronic diseases.…”

Section: Health Literacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Communicating with Companions. The Impact of Companion Empowerment and Companion Literacy on the Well-being of Elderly Patients

Vázquez

Álvarez

Lanza

2020

Health Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measure what we want: a taxonomy of short generic person-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs)

Cited by 36 publications

References 67 publications

Development of social contact and loneliness measures with validation in social prescribing

Development of social contact and loneliness measures with validation in social prescribing

Comparison of staff and resident health status ratings in care homes

Communicating with Companions. The Impact of Companion Empowerment and Companion Literacy on the Well-being of Elderly Patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About