Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Description of the reviews

From: The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: a systematic review of reviews

First author and year Setting Aims Type of review Synthesis methods Inclusion criteria for individual studies Exclusion criteria for individual studies Number of individual articles/reports included
Antunes, 2014 [22] Palliative care Identify barriers and facilitators to implementing PROMs in palliative care settings and generate recommendations to inform the process. Systematic review Narrative synthesis (a) Primary studies published in English, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, German and French. (b) Studies using a PROM alongside the clinical care of adult patients in palliative care settings. (c) Studies reporting barriers and/or facilitators of implementing PROMs. (a) Published literature other than primary studies. (b) Studies reporting on the development and feasibility of specific PROMs. (c) Studies of PROMs not completed by the patient e.g. completed by a carer. 31
Bantug, 2016 [36] Any healthcare setting Identify information on the graphical display of PROMs data in routine practice. Integrative review Synthesis through generating themes (a) Reported primary studies. (b)Addressed the communication of PROMs data to patients or clinicians. (c) Published between 1999 and 2014. (d) Published in either English or French. No exclusion criteria specified. 9
Boyce, 2014 [23] Any healthcare setting Identify the barriers and facilitators for clinicians in using the information generated from PROMs. Systematic review Thematic synthesis (a) Studies published in English. (b) Participants were clinicians. (c) Studies examined clinicians’ views of PROMs after receiving feedback. (d) Studies used a qualitative methodology. No exclusion criteria specified. 16
Duncan, 2012 [35] Care provided by Allied Health Professionals Identify the barriers and facilitators to using PROMs in routine practice by Allied Health Professionals. Systematic review Narrative analysis (a) Studies concerned with identifying facilitators/barriers in the routine use of PROMs by Allied Health Professionals in practice. (b) Studies published in English. (a) If the topic in the studies was not of direct relevance. (b) If samples were not clearly defined. (c) If a sample was not wholly composed of Allied Health Professionals. 15
Greenhalgh, 2017 [24] Any healthcare setting Identify the processes through which, and circumstances in which, PROMs feedback improves patient care. Realist synthesis Realist synthesis (a) Studies which provided a theoretical framework that describes how the process of feeding back individual PROMs intends to work. (b) Studies which provided a critique, review or discussion of the ideas underlying how individual PROMs feedback is intended to work. (c) Studies that provided stakeholder accounts or opinions of how individual PROMs feedback does/does not work. (d) Studies which outlined, discussed or reviewed potential unintended consequences of individual PROMs feedback. (a) If studies focused on PROMs as a research tool. (b) If studies focused on evaluating or reviewing the psychometric properties of PROMs. (c) If studies provided advice or recommendations for which PROM to use in a research context. 36
Howell, 2015 [37] Cancer care Identify the PROMs used within routine cancer services, their impact and the factors influencing uptake. Scoping review Does not specify which method used (a) Studies which reported on the routine use of PROMS. (b) The PROM was completed by the patient. (c) Included cancer patients or survivors. (d) Evaluated outcomes at the patient, clinical practice or care process or system level or barriers/enablers to using PROMs. (e) Studies published from 2003. (f) Studies published in English. (g) Could be primary quantitative or qualitative studies or systematic literature reviews. No exclusion criteria specified. 30 individual studies and 4 systematic reviews.