Evaluating the effectiveness of using PROs in clinical practice

a role for cluster-randomised trials

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Many of us believe there are major benefits to be gained by using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in routine clinical practice. However, demonstrating tangible benefits has frequently proved elusive. Although randomised clinical trials (RCTs) have become accepted as the standard for comparing alternative forms of clinical interventions, when evaluating the effectiveness of PROs there are a number of challenges both in terms of study design and the subsequent analysis. Despite this, to date, of those investigators who have used RCTs, relatively few have used anything other than simple two-group randomisation and comparisons. Most of these trials have also failed to demonstrate convincing benefits to patient outcomes. We suggest that the use of PROs may result in modest yet important improvements to patient outcomes, and that these benefits may be obscured in conventional individual patient trials because of contamination effects. The advantages of alternative designs such as cross-over studies and in particular cluster-randomised trials are illustrated.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1315-1321
Number of pages7
JournalQuality of Life Research
Volume17
Issue number10
Early online date27 Sep 2008
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2008

Keywords

  • Cluster-randomised trial
  • PRO in clinical practice
  • Health-related quality of life
  • Quality-of-Life
  • Health-care
  • Communication

Cite this

Evaluating the effectiveness of using PROs in clinical practice : a role for cluster-randomised trials. / Fayers, Peter M.

In: Quality of Life Research, Vol. 17, No. 10, 12.2008, p. 1315-1321.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{858d802d090c49b58e5c56484061e9ec,
title = "Evaluating the effectiveness of using PROs in clinical practice: a role for cluster-randomised trials",
abstract = "Many of us believe there are major benefits to be gained by using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in routine clinical practice. However, demonstrating tangible benefits has frequently proved elusive. Although randomised clinical trials (RCTs) have become accepted as the standard for comparing alternative forms of clinical interventions, when evaluating the effectiveness of PROs there are a number of challenges both in terms of study design and the subsequent analysis. Despite this, to date, of those investigators who have used RCTs, relatively few have used anything other than simple two-group randomisation and comparisons. Most of these trials have also failed to demonstrate convincing benefits to patient outcomes. We suggest that the use of PROs may result in modest yet important improvements to patient outcomes, and that these benefits may be obscured in conventional individual patient trials because of contamination effects. The advantages of alternative designs such as cross-over studies and in particular cluster-randomised trials are illustrated.",
keywords = "Cluster-randomised trial, PRO in clinical practice, Health-related quality of life, Quality-of-Life, Health-care, Communication",
author = "Fayers, {Peter M.}",
year = "2008",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1007/s11136-008-9391-9",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "1315--1321",
journal = "Quality of Life Research",
issn = "0962-9343",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating the effectiveness of using PROs in clinical practice

T2 - a role for cluster-randomised trials

AU - Fayers, Peter M.

PY - 2008/12

Y1 - 2008/12

N2 - Many of us believe there are major benefits to be gained by using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in routine clinical practice. However, demonstrating tangible benefits has frequently proved elusive. Although randomised clinical trials (RCTs) have become accepted as the standard for comparing alternative forms of clinical interventions, when evaluating the effectiveness of PROs there are a number of challenges both in terms of study design and the subsequent analysis. Despite this, to date, of those investigators who have used RCTs, relatively few have used anything other than simple two-group randomisation and comparisons. Most of these trials have also failed to demonstrate convincing benefits to patient outcomes. We suggest that the use of PROs may result in modest yet important improvements to patient outcomes, and that these benefits may be obscured in conventional individual patient trials because of contamination effects. The advantages of alternative designs such as cross-over studies and in particular cluster-randomised trials are illustrated.

AB - Many of us believe there are major benefits to be gained by using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in routine clinical practice. However, demonstrating tangible benefits has frequently proved elusive. Although randomised clinical trials (RCTs) have become accepted as the standard for comparing alternative forms of clinical interventions, when evaluating the effectiveness of PROs there are a number of challenges both in terms of study design and the subsequent analysis. Despite this, to date, of those investigators who have used RCTs, relatively few have used anything other than simple two-group randomisation and comparisons. Most of these trials have also failed to demonstrate convincing benefits to patient outcomes. We suggest that the use of PROs may result in modest yet important improvements to patient outcomes, and that these benefits may be obscured in conventional individual patient trials because of contamination effects. The advantages of alternative designs such as cross-over studies and in particular cluster-randomised trials are illustrated.

KW - Cluster-randomised trial

KW - PRO in clinical practice

KW - Health-related quality of life

KW - Quality-of-Life

KW - Health-care

KW - Communication

U2 - 10.1007/s11136-008-9391-9

DO - 10.1007/s11136-008-9391-9

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 1315

EP - 1321

JO - Quality of Life Research

JF - Quality of Life Research

SN - 0962-9343

IS - 10

ER -