- Title
- Are we missing the Institute of Medicine's mark? A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures assessing quality of patient-centred cancer care
- Creator
- Tzelepis, Flora; Rose, Shiho; Sanson-Fisher, Robert W.; Clinton-McHarg, Tara; Carey, Mariko L.; Paul, Christine L.
- Relation
- BMC Cancer Vol. 14
- Publisher Link
- http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-14-41
- Publisher
- BioMed Central Ltd.
- Resource Type
- journal article
- Date
- 2014
- Description
- Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has endorsed six dimensions of patient-centredness as crucial to providing quality healthcare. These dimensions outline that care must be: 1) respectful to patients’ values, preferences, and expressed needs; 2) coordinated and integrated; 3) provide information, communication, and education; 4) ensure physical comfort; 5) provide emotional support—relieving fear and anxiety; and 6) involve family and friends. However, whether patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) comprehensively cover these dimensions remains unexplored. This systematic review examined whether PROMs designed to assess the quality of patient-centred cancer care addressed all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care and the psychometric properties of these measures. Methods: Medline, PsycINFO, Current Contents, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus were searched to retrieve published studies describing the development and psychometric properties of PROMs assessing the quality of patient-centred cancer care. Two authors determined if eligible PROMs included the six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care and evaluated the adequacy of psychometric properties based on recommended criteria for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, face/content validity, construct validity and cross-cultural adaptation. Results: Across all 21 PROMs, the most commonly included IOM dimension of patient-centred care was “information, communication and education” (19 measures). In contrast, only five measures assessed the “involvement of family and friends.” Two measures included one IOM-endorsed patient-centred care dimension, two measures had two dimensions, seven measures had three dimensions, five measures had four dimensions, and four measures had five dimensions. One measure, the Indicators (Non-small Cell Lung Cancer), covered all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care, but had adequate face/content validity only. Eighteen measures met the recommended adequacy criteria for construct validity, 15 for face/content validity, seven for internal consistency, three for cross-cultural adaptation and no measure for test-retest reliability. Conclusions: There are no psychometrically rigorous PROMs developed with cancer patients that capture all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care. Using more than one measure or expanding existing measures to cover all six patient-centred care dimensions could improve assessment and delivery of patient-centred care. Construction of new comprehensive measures with acceptable psychometric properties that can be used with the general cancer population may also be warranted.
- Subject
- patient-centred; quality of care; patient-reported outcome measures; cancer; reliability; validity; systematic review
- Identifier
- http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1056760
- Identifier
- uon:16084
- Identifier
- ISSN:1471-2407
- Language
- eng
- Full Text
- Reviewed
- Hits: 2761
- Visitors: 3074
- Downloads: 383
| Thumbnail | File | Description | Size | Format | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| View Details Download | ATTACHMENT01 | Publisher version (open access) | 389 KB | Adobe Acrobat PDF | View Details Download |