Patients’ perspective on supposedly patient-relevant process and outcome parameters: a cross-sectional survey within the ‘PRO patients study’

Abstract

Background To be able to make informed choices based on their individual preferences, patients need to be adequately informed about treatment options and their potential outcomes. This implies that studies measure the effects of care based on parameters that are relevant to patients. In a previous scoping review, we found a wide variety of supposedly patient-relevant parameters that equally addressed processes and outcomes of care. We were unable to identify a consistent understanding of patient relevance and therefore aimed to develop an empirically based concept including a generic set of patient-relevant parameters. As a first step we evaluated the process and outcome parameters identified in the scoping review from the patients’ perspective. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey among German general practice patients. Ten research practices of Witten/Herdecke University supported the study. During a two-week period in the fall of 2020, patients willing to participate self-administered a short questionnaire. It evaluated the relevance of the 32 parameters identified in the scoping review on a 5-point Likert scale and offered a free-text field for additional parameters. These free-text answers were inductively categorized by two researchers. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Bivariate analyses were performed to determine whether there are any correlations between rating a parameter as highly relevant and patients’ characteristics. Results Data from 299 patients were eligible for analysis. All outcomes except ‘sexuality’ and ‘frequency of healthcare service utilization’ were rated important. ‘Confidence in therapy’ was rated most important, followed by ‘prevention of comorbidity’ and ‘mobility’. Relevance ratings of five parameters were associated with patients’ age and gender, but not with their chronic status. The free-text analysis revealed 15 additional parameters, 12 of which addressed processes of care, i.e., ‘enough time in physician consultation’. Conclusion Patients attach great value to parameters addressing processes of care. It appears as though the way in which patients experience the care process is not less relevant than what comes of it. Relevance ratings were not associated with chronic status, but few parameters were gender- and age-related. Trial registration Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative, registration number: 1685.

Indigenous approaches to perinatal mental health: a systematic review with critical interpretive synthesis

“…The inclusion of the perspectives of birthing people affected by perinatal mental illness is of particular importance. This is to ensure that identified outcomes have relevance and meaning to the population involved (Kersting et al 2022 ). Insights from recipients of care and their families can support a balanced and comprehensive assessment of outcomes and efficacy of treatment.…”

Beyond the medical file: a scoping review on patients’ perspectives on guideline-oriented depression treatment in primary care

“…Patient-reported and - relevant outcomes are a topic of growing interest as patient-centered care is required to decide whatis meaningful and valuable to the individual patient [12]. Patients’ perspectives, their values and preferences should be considered in the clinical decision-making process [13]. Up to now, patient-reported outcomes often consist in symptom-related questionnaires but do neglect patients’ point of view on domains such as satisfaction, expectations and contextual information [14].…”