Patient-reported outcomes in trauma: a scoping study of published research

Abstract

More people are surviving traumatic injury, but disability and reduced quality of life are frequent. Investigators are now focusing on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to better understand this problem. We performed a scoping study of the literature to explore trends in the study of PROs after injury. The volume of published literature on PROs after injury has consistently increased, but use of measurement tool and categorization of publications are inconsistent. Journal keyword patterns are inconsistent and likely limit the effective dissemination of important findings. In studies of hospitalized trauma patients, more than 100 unique measurement tools were used, and trauma-specific measures were used in fewer than 5% of studies. International investigators are more consistent than those in the USAin the use of validated, classic measurement tools such as the Short-Form 36 and the EuroQoL Five-Dimension tools. Uniform use of measurement tools would help improve the quality and comparability of research on PROs, and trauma-specific measures would enhance the study of long-term injury outcomes.

Long-term patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures after injury: the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) scoping review

“…This review builds on and enhances the findings of previous reports that recognize the lack of standardization and trauma-specific PROMs as barriers to better understand long-term outcomes after injury and their utility as quality improvement measures. 17 , 18 Despite the increasing support for use of PROMs in the literature, the evaluation of patient-reported health outcomes in trauma remains inconsistent and insufficient.…”

“…According to the results, about two thirds of the research published in long-term outcomes after injury focuses on TBI and orthopedic injuries, which is consistent with previous reports. 18 Although the head and extremities are the most commonly affected AIS body regions after a traumatic injury in the United States, 20 there are other injury groups where the amount of published research does not match the prevalence of the injury. For instance, according to the 2016 annual report from the National Trauma Data Bank, 20 25% of injured patients in the United States suffered from an injury to the face, yet only 2% (11/747) of articles included in this review analyzed PROs in facial trauma.…”

What constitutes a ‘successful’ recovery? Patient perceptions of the recovery process after a traumatic injury

“…Finally, the qualitative nature of the methodology for this study involved ascribing personal interpretations to the narratives obtained through the interviews. Although there are many objective patient-reported outcomes tools,24 we did not assess objective functional outcomes of participants. While care was taken to let the participants’ words speak for themselves, alternative findings and insights could be reached by individuals with different perspectives or expertise.…”

A prospective randomised controlled trial of operative versus non-operative management of fractures of the humeral diaphysis: the HUmeral Shaft Fracture FIXation (HU-FIX) Study protocol

“…Use of patient-reported measures to assess outcomes after a traumatic injury is consistently expanding [43], with the main advantage being that determining injury outcome or treatment success is increasingly becoming patient-centred. The DASH score is a holistic measure of outcome, assessing impairment, activity limitation and participant restriction [44].…”