Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings

Patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs/PREMs) are well established in research for many health conditions, but barriers persist for implementing them in routine care. Implementation science (IS) offers a potential way forward, but its application has been limited for PROMs/PREMs. We compare similarities and differences for widely used IS frameworks and their applicability for implementing PROMs/PREMs through case studies. Three case studies implemented PROMs: (1) pain clinics in Canada; (2) oncology clinics in Australia; and (3) pediatric/adult clinics for chronic conditions in the Netherlands. The fourth case study is planning PREMs implementation in Canadian primary care clinics. We compare case studies on barriers, enablers, implementation strategies, and evaluation. Case studies used IS frameworks to systematize barriers, to develop implementation strategies for clinics, and to evaluate implementation effectiveness. Across case studies, consistent PROM/PREM implementation barriers were technology, uncertainty about how or why to use PROMs/PREMs, and competing demands from established clinical workflows. Enabling factors in clinics were context specific. Implementation support strategies changed during pre-implementation, implementation, and post-implementation stages. Evaluation approaches were inconsistent across case studies, and thus, we present example evaluation metrics specific to PROMs/PREMs. Multilevel IS frameworks are necessary for PROM/PREM implementation given the complexity. In cross-study comparisons, barriers to PROM/PREM implementation were consistent across patient populations and care settings, but enablers were context specific, suggesting the need for tailored implementation strategies based on clinic resources. Theoretically guided studies are needed to clarify how, why, and in what circumstances IS principles lead to successful PROM/PREM integration and sustainability.

[1]  Joanne Greenhalgh,et al.  Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations , 2012, Quality of Life Research.

[2]  Roma Maguire,et al.  What is the value of the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  Daniel Eisenberg,et al.  Economic evaluation in implementation science: Making the business case for implementation strategies , 2020, Psychiatry Research.

[4]  J. Browne,et al.  Does providing feedback on patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals result in better outcomes for patients? A systematic review , 2013, Quality of Life Research.

[5]  P. Nilsen.  Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks , 2015, Implementation Science.

[6]  Jennifer Leeman,et al.  Beyond “implementation strategies”: classifying the full range of strategies used in implementation science and practice , 2017, Implementation Science.

[7]  Rinku Sutradhar,et al.  Integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for personalized symptom management in “real-world” oncology practices: a population-based cohort comparison study of impact on healthcare utilization , 2020, Supportive Care in Cancer.

[8]  M. Grootenhuis,et al.  A retrospective assessment of the KLIK PROM portal implementation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) , 2020, Quality of Life Research.

[9]  Ola Ekholm,et al.  Patient-reported outcomes are independent predictors of one-year mortality and cardiac events across cardiac diagnoses: Findings from the national DenHeart survey , 2019, European journal of preventive cardiology.

[10]  Zarnie Khadjesari,et al.  Implementation outcome assessment instruments used in physical healthcare settings and their measurement properties: a systematic review protocol , 2017, BMJ Open.

[11]  Diana Zidarov,et al.  Prospective application of implementation science theories and frameworks to inform use of PROMs in routine clinical care within an integrated pain network , 2020, Quality of Life Research.

[12]  Bryan J. Weiner,et al.  Developing measures to assess constructs from the Inner Setting domain of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research , 2018, Implementation Science.

[13]  Alicia C. Bunger,et al.  Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda , 2010, Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research.

[14]  Bryan J Weiner,et al.  Organizational readiness for implementing change: a psychometric assessment of a new measure , 2014, Implementation Science.

[15]  Maria E. Fernandez,et al.  Planning Health Promotion Programs: An Intervention Mapping Approach , 2006 .

[16]  Per Nilsen,et al.  Handbook on Implementation Science , 2020 .

[17]  C. May,et al.  Implementing, Embedding, and Integrating Practices: An Outline of Normalization Process Theory , 2009 .

[18]  Richard Harding,et al.  Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice: A systematic review of facilitators and barriers , 2014, Palliative medicine.

[19]  Belinda Borrelli,et al.  The assessment, monitoring, and enhancement of treatment fidelity in public health clinical trials. , 2011, Journal of public health dentistry.

[20]  Christopher J. Miller,et al.  The FRAME: an expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions , 2019, Implementation Science.

[21]  Joanne Greenhalgh,et al.  Framework and guidance for implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: evidence, challenges and opportunities. , 2016, Journal of comparative effectiveness research.

[22]  Borsika A. Rabin,et al.  RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework: Adapting to New Science and Practice With a 20-Year Review , 2019, Front. Public Health.

[23]  Corneel Coens,et al.  Quality of life as a prognostic indicator of survival: A pooled analysis of individual patient data from canadian cancer trials group clinical trials , 2018, Cancer.

[24]  Fernando Fernandez-Llimos,et al.  A systematic review of implementation frameworks of innovations in healthcare and resulting generic implementation framework , 2015, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[25]  Charlotte Kingsley,et al.  Patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures , 2017 .

[26]  Zarnie Khadjesari,et al.  Designing high-quality implementation research: development, application, feasibility and preliminary evaluation of the implementation science research development (ImpRes) tool and guide , 2019, Implementation Science.

[27]  Carl May,et al.  Normalization Process Theory , 2020 .

[28]  David A Chambers,et al.  Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. , 2012, American journal of preventive medicine.

[29]  David A Chambers,et al.  Leveraging Implementation Science to Improve Cancer Care Delivery and Patient Outcomes. , 2017, Journal of oncology practice.

[30]  S. Michie,et al.  Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research , 2012, Implementation Science.

[31]  Caitlin N. Dorsey,et al.  Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures , 2017, Implementation Science.

[32]  Jo Rycroft-Malone,et al.  The PARIHS framework--a framework for guiding the implementation of evidence-based practice. , 2004, Journal of nursing care quality.

[33]  Christian D Helfrich,et al.  A Guide for applying a revised version of the PARIHS framework for implementation , 2011, Implementation Science : IS.

[34]  Jeremy M. Grimshaw,et al.  A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems , 2017, Implementation Science.

[35]  Gerjo Kok,et al.  Implementation Mapping: Using Intervention Mapping to Develop Implementation Strategies , 2019, Front. Public Health.

[36]  Laura J. Damschroder,et al.  Specifying and comparing implementation strategies across seven large implementation interventions: a practical application of theory , 2019, Implementation Science.

[37]  I. Atherton,et al.  Instruments to measure patient experience of healthcare quality in hospitals: a systematic review , 2014, Systematic Reviews.

[38]  Stephen M Shortell,et al.  Linking Practice Adoption of Patient Engagement Strategies and Relational Coordination to Patient-Reported Outcomes in Accountable Care Organizations. , 2019, The Milbank quarterly.

[39]  Stephenie R. Chaudoir,et al.  Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures , 2013, Implementation Science.

[40]  S. Straus,et al.  Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? , 2006, The Journal of continuing education in the health professions.

[41]  Janel Hanmer,et al.  Better Physician Ratings from Discussing PROs with Patients , 2018 .

[42]  Joanne Greenhalgh,et al.  How do patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support clinician-patient communication and patient care? A realist synthesis , 2018, Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes.

[43]  J. Kirchner,et al.  A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project , 2015, Implementation Science.

[44]  Christine Dymek,et al.  Advancing the use of patient-reported outcomes in practice: understanding challenges, opportunities, and the potential of health information technology , 2019, Quality of Life Research.

[45]  Bryan J Weiner,et al.  Instrumentation issues in implementation science , 2014, Implementation Science.

[46]  Ross C. Brownson,et al.  A review of policy dissemination and implementation research funded by the National Institutes of Health, 2007–2014 , 2015, Implementation Science.

[47]  Luke Wolfenden,et al.  Psychometric properties of implementation measures for public health and community settings and mapping of constructs against the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: a systematic review , 2016, Implementation Science.

[48]  Richard Nicholas,et al.  Patient-reported outcomes and survival in multiple sclerosis: A 10-year retrospective cohort study using the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale–29 , 2017, PLoS medicine.

[49]  John Landsverk,et al.  The Cost of Implementing New Strategies (COINS): A Method for Mapping Implementation Resources Using the Stages of Implementation Completion. , 2014, Children and youth services review.

[50]  Niranjan Kissoon,et al.  Theoretical domains framework to assess barriers to change for planning health care quality interventions: a systematic literature review , 2016, Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare.

[51]  Joanne Greenhalgh,et al.  RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations , 2016, BMC Medicine.

[52]  John Brazier,et al.  The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: a systematic review of reviews , 2018, Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes.

[53]  J. Lowery,et al.  Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science , 2009, Implementation science : IS.

[54]  Brenton G. Abadie,et al.  A systematic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research , 2015, Implementation Science.

[55]  Andrew Booth,et al.  Using the Knowledge to Action Framework in practice: a citation analysis and systematic review , 2014, Implementation Science.

[56]  Hester F. Lingsma,et al.  Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Breast Cancer Care: A Systematic Review. , 2019, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[57]  Gill Harvey,et al.  Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in Healthcare: A Facilitation Guide , 2015 .

[58]  Deborah Schrag,et al.  Symptom Monitoring With Patient-Reported Outcomes During Routine Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial. , 2016, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[59]  P. Skovlund,et al.  The development of PROmunication: a training-tool for clinicians using patient-reported outcomes to promote patient-centred communication in clinical cancer settings , 2020, Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes.

[60]  Jeremy M. Grimshaw,et al.  Action, actor, context, target, time (AACTT): a framework for specifying behaviour , 2019, Implementation Science.

[61]  Elizabeth Murray,et al.  Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Statement , 2017, British Medical Journal.

[62]  Cara C. Lewis,et al.  Outcomes for implementation science: an enhanced systematic review of instruments using evidence-based rating criteria , 2015, Implementation Science.

[63]  R. Glasgow,et al.  Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. , 1999, American journal of public health.

[64]  L. Y. Yang,et al.  Patient-reported outcome use in oncology: a systematic review of the impact on patient-clinician communication , 2017, Supportive Care in Cancer.

[65]  Bart Criel,et al.  Advancing the application of systems thinking in health: a realist evaluation of a capacity building programme for district managers in Tumkur, India , 2014, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[66]  Gill Harvey,et al.  PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice , 2015, Implementation Science.

[67]  Arlene E. Chung,et al.  Performance Measures Based on How Adults With Cancer Feel and Function: Stakeholder Recommendations and Feasibility Testing in Six Cancer Centers. , 2020, JCO oncology practice.