Article Text

Original research
How do third sector organisations or charities providing health and well-being services in England implement patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)? A qualitative interview study
  1. Alexis Foster,
  2. Alicia O'Cathain,
  3. Janet Harris
  1. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
  1. Correspondence to Alexis Foster; alexis.foster{at}sheffield.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives To identify the facilitators and barriers to implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in third sector organisations (TSOs) delivering health and well-being services.

Design A qualitative interview study. Participants were recruited using purposive, opportunistic and snowballing methods. Framework analysis was used.

Setting TSOs including charities, community groups and not-for-profit organisations in England, UK.

Participants Thirty interviewees including service users, TSO front-line workers and managers, commissioners of TSOs and other stakeholders such as academic researchers.

Results TSOs primarily used PROMs because of pressures arising from the external funding context. However, organisations often struggled to implement PROMs, rarely getting the process right first time. Facilitators for implementation included having an implementation lead committed to making it work, investing resources in data management systems and support staff and taking a collaborative approach to designing the PROMs process. The latter helped to ensure an appropriate PROMs process for the specific TSO including choosing a suitable measure and planning how data would be collected, processed and used. There was a dilemma about whether TSOs should use standardised well-being measures (eg, the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale) or design their own PROM. Not all TSOs sustained the collection and reporting of PROMs over time because this required a change in organisational culture to view PROMs as beneficial for the TSO and PROMs becoming part of front-line workers’ job specifications.

Conclusions TSOs are trying to use PROMs because they feel they have no choice but often struggle with implementation. Having an implementation lead, designing an appropriate process, investing resources, training staff and taking mitigating action to address potential barriers can facilitate implementation. Some of the findings are consistent with the experiences of more clinical services so appear relevant to the implementation of PROMs irrespective of the specific context.

  • public health
  • qualitative research
  • health economics
  • health policy
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

Footnotes

  • Twitter @lexikf

  • Contributors AF undertook all the recruitment, interviews and analysis alongside writing the article. AOC and JH coded a transcript and provided ongoing advice into the conduct of the study and significant input into the analysis. AOC and JH provided substantial feedback on the drafts of the article.

  • Funding The study has been funded through the National Institute for Health Research-Doctoral Research Fellowship (AF; DRF-2016-09-007) scheme and by the National Institute for Health Research Yorkshire and Humber Applied Research Collaboration.

  • Disclaimer The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research, Health Education England or the Department of Health. The funder played no role in the undertaking of the review or the writing of the manuscript.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval The study was approved by the School of Health and Related Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 013727).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement No data is available. The interview data is not available to share as this would breach the conditions of the Ethics Committee which granted approval.