Rating Scales for Clinical Studies in Neurology—Challenges and Opportunities

Hobart, Jeremy; Cano, Stefan

doi:10.17925/usn.2008.04.01.12

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it is important to understand the cause of any resistance as professionals may have good reasons for not implementing or using PROMs 66. For example, PROMs have well-known problems with interpretability and professionals may therefore have legitimate grounds for resisting their use 33 67. The appropriateness of using PROMs in a quality improvement context is also a source of legitimate debate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative research

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative research

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A possible solution to these measurement and interpretation issues is to adopt psychometric techniques such as Rasch modelling. Rasch analysis has the capability of producing more precise measurement instruments and enables the interpretation of the information at the item and scale level [ 53 , 54 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgeon’s experiences of receiving peer benchmarked feedback using patient-reported outcome measures: a qualitative study

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to provide healthcare professionals with peer benchmarked feedback is growing. However, there is little evidence on the opinions of professionals on the value of this information in practice. The purpose of this research is to explore surgeon’s experiences of receiving peer benchmarked PROMs feedback and to examine whether this information led to changes in their practice.MethodsThis qualitative research employed a Framework approach. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with surgeons who received peer benchmarked PROMs feedback. The participants included eleven consultant orthopaedic surgeons in the Republic of Ireland.ResultsFive themes were identified: conceptual, methodological, practical, attitudinal, and impact. A typology was developed based on the attitudinal and impact themes from which three distinct groups emerged. ‘Advocates’ had positive attitudes towards PROMs and confirmed that the information promoted a self-reflective process. ‘Converts’ were uncertain about the value of PROMs, which reduced their inclination to use the data. ‘Sceptics’ had negative attitudes towards PROMs and claimed that the information had no impact on their behaviour. The conceptual, methodological and practical factors were linked to the typology.ConclusionSurgeons had mixed opinions on the value of peer benchmarked PROMs data. Many appreciated the feedback as it reassured them that their practice was similar to their peers. However, PROMs information alone was considered insufficient to help identify opportunities for quality improvements. The reasons for the observed reluctance of participants to embrace PROMs can be categorised into conceptual, methodological, and practical factors. Policy makers and researchers need to increase professionals’ awareness of the numerous purposes and benefits of using PROMs, challenge the current methods to measure performance using PROMs, and reduce the burden of data collection and information dissemination on routine practice.

show abstract

“…The primary assessment tool in this study was the clinical rating scale for tremor proposed by Fahn et al 10 Although we recognize multiple sources of variability in this and other measurement techniques, it is nevertheless a convenient method for tremor assessment. 16,30 Assessments were made preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 and 12 months, and then annually thereafter.…”

Section: Evaluation Of Etmentioning

confidence: 99%