Advertisement
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Advanced searchSave search
From the editors' desk| Volume 95, ISSUE 8, P1419-1422, August 2014

Why Disability and Rehabilitation Specialists Should Lead the Way in Patient-Reported Outcomes

Published:April 11, 2014DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2014.03.022
Why Disability and Rehabilitation Specialists Should Lead the Way in Patient-Reported Outcomes
Next ArticleImprovement of Upper Extremity Motor Control and Function After Home-Based Constraint Induced Therapy in Children With Unilateral Cerebral Palsy: Immediate and Long-Term Effects
      An audio podcast accompanies this article.
      Listen at www.archives-pmr.org.
      Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), or any report directly from patients about their health status, including functional status and feelings, are becoming increasingly recognized as important for many reasons. Not only do PROs represent the patients' view of their health status, but they are more reflective of real life than many objective performance measures historically used in clinical research.
      • Amtmann D.
      • Cook K.F.
      • Johnson K.L.
      • Cella D.
      The PROMIS initiative: involvement of rehabilitation stakeholders in development and examples of applications in rehabilitation research.
      Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92: S12-S19
      PROs are also more predictive of distal outcomes such as mortality in cancer, as well as function and quality of life (QOL) in people with low back pain, than are “objective” measures of disease status (such as imaging findings).
      • Jarvik J.J.
      • Hollingworth W.
      • Heagerty P.
      • Haynor D.R.
      • Deyo R.A.
      The Longitudinal Assessment of Imaging and Disability of the Back (LAIDBack) Study: baseline data.
      Spine. 2001; 26: 1158-1166
      , 
      • Chou R.
      • Fu R.
      • Carrino J.A.
      • Deyo R.A.
      Imaging strategies for low-back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.
      Lancet. 2009; 373: 463-472

      List of abbreviations:

      CER (comparative effectiveness research), EHR (electronic health record), NIH (National Institutes of Health), PRO (patient-reported outcome), PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System), QOL (quality of life)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Register: Create an account
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Amtmann D.
        • Cook K.F.
        • Johnson K.L.
        • Cella D.
        The PROMIS initiative: involvement of rehabilitation stakeholders in development and examples of applications in rehabilitation research.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92: S12-S19
        View in Article
        • Jarvik J.J.
        • Hollingworth W.
        • Heagerty P.
        • Haynor D.R.
        • Deyo R.A.
        The Longitudinal Assessment of Imaging and Disability of the Back (LAIDBack) Study: baseline data.
        Spine. 2001; 26: 1158-1166
        View in Article
        • Chou R.
        • Fu R.
        • Carrino J.A.
        • Deyo R.A.
        Imaging strategies for low-back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Lancet. 2009; 373: 463-472
        View in Article
        • Sandel M.E.
        • Jette A.M.
        • Appelman J.
        • et al.
        Designing and implementing a system for tracking functional status after stroke: a feasibility study.
        PM R. 2013; 5 (quiz 490): 481-490
        View in Article
        • Lai J.S.
        • Cella D.
        • Choi S.
        • et al.
        How item banks and their application can influence measurement practice in rehabilitation medicine: a PROMIS fatigue item bank example.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92: S20-S27
        View in Article
        • Ware Jr., J.E.
        • Phillips J.
        • Yody B.B.
        • Adamczyk J.
        Assessment tools: functional health status and patient satisfaction.
        Am J Med Qual. 1996; 11: S50-S53
        View in Article
        • Granger C.V.
        • Brownscheidle C.M.
        Outcome measurement in medical rehabilitation.
        Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1995; 11: 262-268
        View in Article
        • Granger C.V.
        • Greer D.S.
        Functional status measurement and medical rehabilitation outcomes.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1976; 57: 103-109
        View in Article
        • Wu A.W.
        • Kharrazi H.
        • Boulware L.E.
        • Snyder C.F.
        Measure once, cut twice—adding patient-reported outcome measures to the electronic health record for comparative effectiveness research.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: S12-S20
        View in Article
        • Turner-Stokes L.
        • Williams H.
        • Johnson J.
        Goal attainment scaling: does it provide added value as a person-centred measure for evaluation of outcome in neurorehabilitation following acquired brain injury?.
        J Rehabil Med. 2009; 41: 528-535
        View in Article
        • Khan F.
        • Pallant J.F.
        • Turner-Stokes L.
        Use of goal attainment scaling in inpatient rehabilitation for persons with multiple sclerosis.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008; 89: 652-659
        View in Article
        • Stolee P.
        • Stadnyk K.
        • Myers A.M.
        • Rockwood K.
        An individualized approach to outcome measurement in geriatric rehabilitation.
        J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1999; 54: M641-M647
        View in Article
        • Crits-Christoph P.
        • Ring-Kurtz S.
        • Hamilton J.L.
        • et al.
        A preliminary study of the effects of individual patient-level feedback in outpatient substance abuse treatment programs.
        J Subst Abuse Treat. 2012; 42: 301-309
        View in Article
        • Berry D.L.
        • Hong F.
        • Halpenny B.
        • et al.
        Electronic self-report assessment for cancer and self-care support: results of a multicenter randomized trial.
        J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32: 199-205
        View in Article
        • Iglehart J.K.
        Prioritizing comparative-effectiveness research—IOM recommendations.
        N Engl J Med. 2009; 361: 325-328
        View in Article
        • Gray B.H.
        With the inclusion of $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research in the 2009 fiscal stimulus bill in the United States, the experience of other countries with such research is of substantial interest in this country.
        Milbank Q. 2009; 87: 335-338
        View in Article
        • Sox H.C.
        • Greenfield S.
        Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine.
        Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151: 203-205
        View in Article
        • Wu A.W.
        • Snyder C.
        • Clancy C.M.
        • Steinwachs D.M.
        Adding the patient perspective to comparative effectiveness research.
        Health Aff (Millwood). 2010; 29: 1863-1871
        View in Article
        • Ahmed S.
        • Berzon R.A.
        • Revicki D.A.
        • et al.
        The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: implications for clinical practice and health care policy.
        Med Care. 2012; 50: 1060-1070
        View in Article

      20. Olsen L, Aisner D, McGinnis JM, editors. The Learning Healthcare System: Workshop Summary (IOM Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine). Washington (DC): The National Academies Press; 2007.

        View in Article
        • Greene S.M.
        • Reid R.J.
        • Larson E.B.
        Implementing the learning health system: from concept to action.
        Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157: 207-210
        View in Article
        • Jarvik J.G.
        • Comstock B.A.
        • Bresnahan B.W.
        • et al.
        Study protocol: the Back Pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) registry.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012; 13: 64
        View in Article

      Article info

      Publication history

      Published online: April 11, 2014

      Footnotes

      Disclosures: none.

      Identification

      DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2014.03.022

      Copyright

      © 2014 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      ScienceDirect

      Access this article on ScienceDirect

      The content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals.


      We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. To update your cookie settings, please visit the Cookie Preference Center for this site.
      Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. except certain content provided by third parties.


      RELX