Article Text

Protocol
Protocol for a scoping review exploring the use of patient-reported outcomes in adult social care
  1. Sarah E Hughes1,2,3,
  2. Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi1,2,3,4,5,
  3. Daniel S Lasserson6,
  4. Philip Collis1,
  5. Samantha Cruz Rivera1,2,7,
  6. Christel McMullan1,2,
  7. Grace M Turner1,2,
  8. Jon Glasby8,
  9. Melanie Calvert1,2,3,4,7,9
  1. 1Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research (CPROR), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
  2. 2Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
  3. 3National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Centre West Midlands, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
  4. 4NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Birmingham, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
  5. 5University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
  6. 6University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK
  7. 7Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, Birmingham, UK
  8. 8Department of Social Work and Social Care, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
  9. 9National Institute for Health Research Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre, Birmingham, UK
  1. Correspondence to Sarah E Hughes; s.e.hughes{at}bham.ac.uk

Abstract

Introduction Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are measures of a person’s own views of their health, functioning and quality of life. They are typically assessed using validated, self-completed questionnaires known as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROMs are used in healthcare settings to support care planning, clinical decision-making, patient–practitioner communication and quality improvement. PROMs have a potential role in the delivery of social care where people often have multiple and complex long-term health conditions. However, the use of PROMs in this context is currently unclear. The objective of this scoping review is to explore the evidence relating to the use of PROMs in adult social care.

Methods and analyses The electronic databases Medline (Ovid), PsychInfo (Ovid), ASSIA (ProQuest), Social Care Online (SCIE), Web of Science and EMBASE (Ovid) were searched on 29 September 2020 to identify eligible studies and other publically available documents published since 2010. A grey literature search and hand searching of citations and reference lists of the included studies will also be undertaken. No restrictions on study design or language of publication will be applied. Screening and data extraction will be completed independently by two reviewers. Quality appraisal of the included documents will use the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and AACODS (Authority, Accuracy, Coverage, Objectivity, Date, Significance) checklists. A customised data charting table will be used for data extraction, with analysis of qualitative data using the framework method. The review findings will be presented as tables and in a narrative summary.

Ethics and dissemination Ethical review is not required as scoping reviews are a form of secondary data analysis that synthesise data from publically available sources. Review findings will be shared with service users and other relevant stakeholders and disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. This protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework (www.osf.io).

  • quality in health care
  • organisation of health services
  • protocols & guidelines
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/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 @SarahHughesSLT, @samsamcr, @christel_uob, @gracemturner

  • Contributors SEH, MC, OLA, DSL, JG conceptualised the study and contributed to the study design. SEH and PC developed the search strategy. GMT, SCR, CM contributed to methods design. SEH drafted and edited the manuscript with MC, OLA, DSL, JG, PC, GMT, SCR, CM providing critical revisions to the manuscript and supplementary material. The final version was read and approved by all authors (SEH, MC, OLA, DSL, JG, PC, GMT, SCR, CM).

  • Funding This research is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

  • Competing interests SEH is supported by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Centre (ARC), West Midlands. SH is company director of Narra Consulting Limited and undertakes consultancy work for Cochlear Ltd. MC is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator and receives funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, the NIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre and NIHR ARC West Midlands at the University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Health Data Research UK, Innovate UK (part of UK Research and Innovation), Macmillan Cancer Support, UCB Pharma MC has received personal fees from Astellas, Takeda, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, Glaukos, GSK and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) outside the submitted work. OLA is supported by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), Birmingham, West Midlands. OLA also receives funding from the Health Foundation and has received personal fees from Gilead Sciences. DL is supported by the NIHR ARC West Midlands and the NIHR Community Healthcare MedTech and IVD Cooperative, hosted by Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. JG is a non-executive director of University Hospitals Birmingham, adjunct professor at Curtin University, member of the leadership team for an ESRC large grant on sustainable adult social care, and member of the expert advisory group for West Midlands ARC. PC, GT, SCR, and CM have no conflicts of interest to declare.

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

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.