Stroke survivors' preferences on assessing patient-reported outcome measures.
Cerebral ischemia
PROMs
Patient-reported outcome measures
Stroke aftercare
Journal
Journal of patient-reported outcomes
ISSN: 2509-8020
Titre abrégé: J Patient Rep Outcomes
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101722688
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Nov 2023
30 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
18
07
2023
accepted:
15
11
2023
medline:
1
12
2023
pubmed:
30
11
2023
entrez:
30
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To assess quality of life and unmet needs after stroke, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have gained increasing attention. However, patients' perspectives on assessing PROMs remain unclear, potentially hindering implementation into clinical practice. Therefore, this study explored patients' preferences on assessing PROMs after ischemic stroke. A paper-based questionnaire was sent to stroke survivors treated at the Department of Neurology, University of Leipzig, Germany. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL, EQ-5D-5L) and preferences regarding different aspects of data collection to assess PROMs were investigated and linked to socio-demographic and medical characteristics. 158 persons were contacted and 80 replies were subsequently analyzed. Mean age was 70.16 years and mean HRQoL was 68.79 (visual analogue scale with a theoretical maximum of 100). Participants showed positive attitudes towards PROMs as they saw potential to improve care of other patients (n = 66/79; 83.54%) or to improve their own situation (n = 53/74; 71.62%). Participants preferred an annual interview after stroke (n = 39/80; 48.75%) and would preferably spend 15-30 min (n = 41/79; 51.90%) to answer a written survey (n = 69/80; 86.25%). The initially treating clinic was preferred as initiator of such surveys (n = 43/79; 54.43%). Stratification revealed that participants with more than 1 h of daily digital media usage preferred email as way of communication. For the first time, this study showed individual preferences on assessing PROMs after ischemic stroke, focusing on the way, time interval, duration, and initiation site of surveys. These insights might help to successfully implement PROMs after stroke and subsequently detect unmet needs and deficits in stroke care.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To assess quality of life and unmet needs after stroke, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have gained increasing attention. However, patients' perspectives on assessing PROMs remain unclear, potentially hindering implementation into clinical practice. Therefore, this study explored patients' preferences on assessing PROMs after ischemic stroke.
METHODS
METHODS
A paper-based questionnaire was sent to stroke survivors treated at the Department of Neurology, University of Leipzig, Germany. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL, EQ-5D-5L) and preferences regarding different aspects of data collection to assess PROMs were investigated and linked to socio-demographic and medical characteristics.
RESULTS
RESULTS
158 persons were contacted and 80 replies were subsequently analyzed. Mean age was 70.16 years and mean HRQoL was 68.79 (visual analogue scale with a theoretical maximum of 100). Participants showed positive attitudes towards PROMs as they saw potential to improve care of other patients (n = 66/79; 83.54%) or to improve their own situation (n = 53/74; 71.62%). Participants preferred an annual interview after stroke (n = 39/80; 48.75%) and would preferably spend 15-30 min (n = 41/79; 51.90%) to answer a written survey (n = 69/80; 86.25%). The initially treating clinic was preferred as initiator of such surveys (n = 43/79; 54.43%). Stratification revealed that participants with more than 1 h of daily digital media usage preferred email as way of communication.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
For the first time, this study showed individual preferences on assessing PROMs after ischemic stroke, focusing on the way, time interval, duration, and initiation site of surveys. These insights might help to successfully implement PROMs after stroke and subsequently detect unmet needs and deficits in stroke care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38032486
doi: 10.1186/s41687-023-00660-1
pii: 10.1186/s41687-023-00660-1
pmc: PMC10689585
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
124Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Stroke. 2021 Jul;52(7):2432-2435
pubmed: 33966497
Lancet Neurol. 2008 Oct;7(10):915-26
pubmed: 18722812
Stroke. 1988 May;19(5):604-7
pubmed: 3363593
Sci Rep. 2017 Oct 30;7(1):14300
pubmed: 29085026
HRB Open Res. 2021 Nov 8;4:118
pubmed: 35967008
Disabil Rehabil. 2007 Apr 15;29(7):559-66
pubmed: 17453976
Stroke. 2021 Mar;52(3):1154-1161
pubmed: 33563009
Stroke. 2020 Apr;51(4):1053-1054
pubmed: 32102628
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2016;41(1-2):19-26
pubmed: 26580841
BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 18;9(9):e029258
pubmed: 31533946
Stroke. 2006 Jan;37(1):167-71
pubmed: 16322486
Int J Stroke. 2022 Jan;17(1):18-29
pubmed: 34986727
Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):337-43
pubmed: 11491192
Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl. 2022 Mar 25;4(2):100191
pubmed: 35756978
Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(23):2174-83
pubmed: 25598139
Neurology. 2022 Nov 4;:
pubmed: 36332988
Stroke. 2018 Jun;49(6):1549-1556
pubmed: 29789396
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2010 Sep-Oct;19(5):364-9
pubmed: 20547073
Pharmacoeconomics. 2018 Jun;36(6):663-674
pubmed: 29460066
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2023 Aug;32(8):107156
pubmed: 37178516
Neurology. 2018 Apr 17;90(16):e1364-e1371
pubmed: 29592886
N Engl J Med. 2010 Dec 23;363(26):2477-81
pubmed: 21142528
Eur Stroke J. 2018 Dec;3(4):309-336
pubmed: 31236480
Stroke. 2020 Aug;51(8):2418-2427
pubmed: 32646325
Lancet Neurol. 2020 Mar;19(3):197-198
pubmed: 32085829
Stroke. 2016 Jan;47(1):180-6
pubmed: 26604251
PLoS Med. 2007 Oct 16;4(10):e297
pubmed: 17941715
Nurse Res. 2021 Dec 9;29(4):11-18
pubmed: 34409809