What matters most to patients following percutaneous coronary interventions? A new patient-reported outcome measure developed using Rasch analysis

Soh, Sze‐Ee; Barker, Anna; Ayton, Darshini; Ahern, Susannah; Morello, Renata; Lefkovits, Jeffrey; Brennan, A.; Evans, Sue; Zalcberg, John; Reid, Christopher M.; McNeil, John J

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0222185

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1). The MC-PROM was found to have good internal construct validity and acceptable internal consistency reliability [21]. We found evidence to sum scores from each item to obtain an overall score scored out of 10, with lower scores indicating better patient recovery [21].…”

Section: Composite Measures For Reporting Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…This composite measure is designed to be used by clinicians and hence we focused on obtaining their input. However it is important to note that patients who have had a PCI were involved in each stage of the development of the MC-PROM [19][20][21].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A PROM has been developed for use by VCOR to assess recovery following PCI at 30 days post procedure [19][20][21]. The Monash University Cardiac PROM (MC-PROM) was developed via a three-stage research project that involved patients in every aspect.…”

Section: Composite Measures For Reporting Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Development of a percutaneous coronary intervention patient level composite measure for a clinical quality registry

Ayton

Soh

Morello

et al. 2020

BMC Health Serv Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Composite measures combine data to provide a comprehensive view of patient outcomes. Despite composite measures being a valuable tool to assess post-intervention outcomes, the patient perspective is often missing. The purpose of this study was to develop a composite measure for an established cardiac outcome registry, by combining clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with a patientreported outcome measure (PROM) developed specifically for this population (MC-PROM). Methods: Two studies were undertaken. Study 1: Patients who had undergone a PCI at one of the three participating registry hospital sites completed the 5-item MC-PROM. Clinical outcome data for the patients (e.g. death, myocardial infarction, repeat vascularisation, new bleeding event) were collected 30 days post-intervention as part of routine data collection for the cardiac registry. Exploratory factor analysis of clinical outcomes and MC-PROM data was conducted to determine the minimum number of constructs to be included in a composite measure. Study 2: Clinical experts participated in a Delphi technique, consisting of three rounds of online surveys, to determine the clinical outcomes to be included and the weighting of the clinical outcomes and MC-PROM score for the composite measure. Results: Study 1: Routine clinical outcomes and the MC-PROM data were collected from 266 patients 30 days post PCI. The MC-PROM score was not significantly correlated with any clinical outcomes. Study 2: There was a relatively consistent approach to the weighting of the clinical outcomes and MC-PROM items by the expert panel (n = 18) across the three surveys with the exception of the clinical outcome of 'deceased at 30 days'. The final composite measure included five clinical outcomes within 30 days weighted at 90% (new heart failure, new myocardial infarction, new stent thrombosis, major bleeding event, new stroke, unplanned cardiac rehospitalisation) and the MC-PROM score (comprising 10% of the total weighting). Conclusions: A single patient level composite score, which incorporates weighted clinical outcomes and a PROM was developed. This composite score provides a more comprehensive reported measure of individual patient wellbeing at 30 days post their PCI-procedure, and may assist clinicians to further assess and address patient level factors that potentially impact on clinical recovery.

show abstract

Section: Composite Measures For Reporting Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development of a percutaneous coronary intervention patient level composite measure for a clinical quality registry

Ayton

Soh

Morello

et al. 2020

BMC Health Serv Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Patient-centered care in Coronary Heart Disease: what do you want to measure? A systematic review of reviews on patient-reported outcome measures

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The number of published articles on Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) in Coronary Heart Disease (CHD), a leading cause of disability-adjusted life years lost worldwide, has been growing in the last decades. The aim of this study was to identify all the disease-specific PROMs developed for or used in CHD and summarize their characteristics (regardless of the construct), to facilitate the selection of the most adequate one for each purpose. Methods A systematic review of reviews was conducted in MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. PROQOLID and BiblioPRO libraries were also checked. PROMs were classified by construct and information was extracted from different sources regarding their main characteristics such as aim, number of items, specific dimensions, original language, and metric properties that have been assessed. Results After title and abstract screening of 1224 articles, 114 publications were included for full text review. Finally, we identified 56 PROMs: 12 symptoms scales, 3 measuring functional status, 21 measuring Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL), and 20 focused on other constructs. Three of the symptoms scales were specifically designed for a study (no metric properties evaluated), and only five have been included in a published study in the last decade. Regarding functional status, reliability and validity have been assessed for Duke Activity Index and Seattle Angina Questionnaire, which present multiple language versions. For HRQL, most of the PROMs included physical, emotional, and social domains. Responsiveness has only been evaluated for 10 out the 21 HRQL PROMs identified. Other constructs included psychological aspects, self-efficacy, attitudes, perceptions, threats and expectations about the treatment, knowledge, adjustment, or limitation for work, social support, or self-care. Conclusions There is a wide variety of instruments to assess the patients’ perspective in CHD, covering several constructs. This is the first systematic review of specific PROMs for CHD including all constructs. It has practical significance, as it summarizes relevant information that may help clinicians, researchers, and other healthcare stakeholders to choose the most adequate instrument for promoting shared decision making in a trend towards value-based healthcare.

show abstract

What matters most to patients following percutaneous coronary interventions? A new patient-reported outcome measure developed using Rasch analysis

Cited by 2 publications

References 33 publications

Development of a percutaneous coronary intervention patient level composite measure for a clinical quality registry

Development of a percutaneous coronary intervention patient level composite measure for a clinical quality registry

Patient-centered care in Coronary Heart Disease: what do you want to measure? A systematic review of reviews on patient-reported outcome measures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About