|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 ||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.
|Bantug, 2016 ||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 ||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 ||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.
|Greenhalgh, 2017 ||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.
|Howell, 2015 ||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.|