View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Truth and dare: patients dare to tell the truth when using PROMs in clinical practice.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Truth and dare: patients dare to tell the truth when using PROMs in clinical practice.
Authors: Haverman, Lotte (AUTHOR), Luijten, Michiel A. J. (AUTHOR), Blackford, Amanda L. (AUTHOR), Absolom, Kate (AUTHOR), Basch, Ethan M. (AUTHOR), van Rossum, Marion A. J. (AUTHOR), Engelen, Vivian (AUTHOR), Grootenhuis, Martha A. (AUTHOR), Velikova, Galina (AUTHOR), Snyder, Claire (AUTHOR)
Source: Quality of Life Research. Dec2024, Vol. 33 Issue 12, p3299-3307. 9p.
Subjects: Patient reported outcome measures, Stimulus & response (Psychology), Medical screening, Pediatric therapy, Patient-centered care
Abstract: Purpose: As patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in clinical practice for screening, monitoring, and management, the potential for response bias has been raised (e.g., over-reporting problems for attention, under-reporting to avoid treatment changes/discontinuation). We investigated whether patients systematically bias their responses when they know clinicians will review their PROM results. Methods: We conducted secondary analyses of three experimental studies evaluating PROMs in adult and pediatric care. Prior to PROM completion, intervention group patients were informed that the results would be shown to their clinicians ("feedback" arm), whereas control group patients were told that their clinicians would not see their responses ("no feedback" arm). Independent sample t-tests compared the "feedback" and "no feedback" arms' PROM scores at baseline. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using Cohen's d statistics with Hedges' g correction, and effect sizes > 0.50 were considered clinically relevant. Results: Across the 29 domains assessed in the three studies, no between-arm differences reached an effect size of ± 0.50. Only 3/29 effect sizes exceeded ± 0.30. The confidence intervals for 14 domains included ± 0.50, with 4 favoring the "no feedback" arm and 10 favoring the "feedback" arm. Two domains reached statistical significance, one favoring the "no feedback" arm and one favoring the "feedback" arm. Conclusion: This study does not support the hypothesis that patients systematically bias their PROM responses if they know that clinicians will see their results. These findings support using PROMs in clinical practice as a valid mechanism to promote patient-centered care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Quality of Life Research is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: pbh
DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
An: 181133483
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Truth and dare: patients dare to tell the truth when using PROMs in clinical practice.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Haverman%2C+Lotte%22">Haverman, Lotte</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Luijten%2C+Michiel+A%2E+J%2E%22">Luijten, Michiel A. J.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Blackford%2C+Amanda+L%2E%22">Blackford, Amanda L.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Absolom%2C+Kate%22">Absolom, Kate</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Basch%2C+Ethan+M%2E%22">Basch, Ethan M.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22van+Rossum%2C+Marion+A%2E+J%2E%22">van Rossum, Marion A. J.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Engelen%2C+Vivian%22">Engelen, Vivian</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Grootenhuis%2C+Martha+A%2E%22">Grootenhuis, Martha A.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Velikova%2C+Galina%22">Velikova, Galina</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Snyder%2C+Claire%22">Snyder, Claire</searchLink> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Quality+of+Life+Research%22">Quality of Life Research</searchLink>. Dec2024, Vol. 33 Issue 12, p3299-3307. 9p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Patient+reported+outcome+measures%22">Patient reported outcome measures</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stimulus+%26+response+%28Psychology%29%22">Stimulus & response (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+screening%22">Medical screening</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pediatric+therapy%22">Pediatric therapy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Patient-centered+care%22">Patient-centered care</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Purpose: As patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in clinical practice for screening, monitoring, and management, the potential for response bias has been raised (e.g., over-reporting problems for attention, under-reporting to avoid treatment changes/discontinuation). We investigated whether patients systematically bias their responses when they know clinicians will review their PROM results. Methods: We conducted secondary analyses of three experimental studies evaluating PROMs in adult and pediatric care. Prior to PROM completion, intervention group patients were informed that the results would be shown to their clinicians ("feedback" arm), whereas control group patients were told that their clinicians would not see their responses ("no feedback" arm). Independent sample t-tests compared the "feedback" and "no feedback" arms' PROM scores at baseline. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using Cohen's d statistics with Hedges' g correction, and effect sizes > 0.50 were considered clinically relevant. Results: Across the 29 domains assessed in the three studies, no between-arm differences reached an effect size of ± 0.50. Only 3/29 effect sizes exceeded ± 0.30. The confidence intervals for 14 domains included ± 0.50, with 4 favoring the "no feedback" arm and 10 favoring the "feedback" arm. Two domains reached statistical significance, one favoring the "no feedback" arm and one favoring the "feedback" arm. Conclusion: This study does not support the hypothesis that patients systematically bias their PROM responses if they know that clinicians will see their results. These findings support using PROMs in clinical practice as a valid mechanism to promote patient-centered care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Quality of Life Research is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=181133483
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11136-024-03772-3
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 9
        StartPage: 3299
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Patient reported outcome measures
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stimulus & response (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Medical screening
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pediatric therapy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Patient-centered care
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Truth and dare: patients dare to tell the truth when using PROMs in clinical practice.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Haverman, Lotte
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Luijten, Michiel A. J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Blackford, Amanda L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Absolom, Kate
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Basch, Ethan M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: van Rossum, Marion A. J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Engelen, Vivian
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Grootenhuis, Martha A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Velikova, Galina
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Snyder, Claire
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Text: Dec2024
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 09629343
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 33
            – Type: issue
              Value: 12
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Quality of Life Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1