PROM
Conditions
Brief summary
in clinical practice has been curbed by issues related to the variability in use of these tools for decision-making, and universally poor completion rates over time. Patients may not see the relevance of responding to questions about their health, and the results may not be reviewed by the clinician or presented and visualized with the patient. The questions may seem impersonal (e.g. too general and not directly assessing their individual goals, motivations, aspirations), irrelevant (e.g., asking about symptoms of depression when a person is seeking musculoskeletal specialty care) and insensitive (e.g., asking about sensitive subjects at the outset thereby disengaging the individual), and redundant or awkward (e.g., presenting questions that seem very similar or administered in strange orders). Finally, PROMs may also confer some burden (e.g., long PROM questionnaires often used for research may be unnecessarily burdensome for patient care), and provide logistical challenges (e.g., difficulties in administering the tools at the right time points), adding to a poor patient experience.
Detailed description
The investigator sought to assess the impact of an enhanced and more personalized PROM strategy to overcome these barriers by providing i) a primer ahead of PROMs administration, ii) simple 3-part survey capturing capability, comfort, and calm, iii) a short distress and misconception survey, iv) goal setting question, v) summary sheet of PRO scores, and vi) a commitment intervention. Patients will subsequently be requested to complete the CollaboRATE survey, JSPPE survey, and questions about their experience in relation to the new format of surveys (only if they were in the intervention group) before receiving a text message reminder around 6-weeks followed by a set of deprioritization questions and the 3-part capability, comfort, and calm survey.
Interventions
OTHERUsual PROMs and new PROMs strategy
Patients randomized to intervention receive both usual PROMs and new PROMs strategy
Sponsors
University of Texas at Austin
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
BASIC_SCIENCE
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 89 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
All new patients English and Spanish speakers
Exclusion criteria
Cognitive deficiency precluding PROM completion Language other than English or Spanish
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Completion of 3-survey patient-reported outcome measure at 6-week follow-up via Text | through study completion, an average of 6 weeks | We will assess the completion of 3-survey patient-reported outcome measure at 6-week follow-up via Text. |
| Completion of answered text | through study completion, an average of 6 weeks | We will assess the completion response rate. |
| Completion of deprioritization options 1 or 2 at 6-week follow-up via text or email | through study completion, an average of 6 weeks | "1 = I got what I needed" "2 = I didn't receive anything useful" "3 = I'm still receiving care" |
| Jefferson Scale of Patient's Perceptions of Physician Empathy | through study completion, an average of 6 weeks | The Jefferson Scale of Patient's Perceptions of Physician Empathy includes five 7-point scale questions and higher scores indicated greater perceived clinician empathy. |
Countries
United States
Contacts
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORDavid Ring, MD
Professor of orthopedic surgery at The university of Texas at Austin
Outcome results
None listed