Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025
Expert consensus on implementing patient-reported outcomes in telehealth: findings from an international Delphi study.
СтатьяConsensus StatementНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Unni Elizabeth J, Schougaard Liv Marit Valen, Aiyegbusi Olalekan Lee, Mate Kedar K V, Austin Elizabeth J, Greffin Klara, Roberts Natasha, Grove Birgith Engelst, Muehlan Holger, ISOQOL Clinical practice SIG PROs in Telehealth Working Group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Using Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) in clinical care can reduce healthcare service utilization by improving the quality of care. Telehealth, defined by WHO, as the use of "telecommunications and virtual technology to deliver healthcare outside of traditional healthcare facilities", can facilitate a dynamic dialogue between patients and healthcare providers for timely interventions. With the increased use of telehealth facilitated by the infrastructure development during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an opportunity to utilize telehealth for PRO implementation and a need for guidelines for using PROs via telehealth. This study aimed to generate expert consensus on the utilization of PROs in telehealth.
METHODS: Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus among international experts with a predetermined consensus threshold of 70%. Experts were mainly identified through the ISOQOL Clinical Practice SIG. Surveys asked a combination of structured and open-ended questions about the conceptualization of PROs in telehealth, its applicability, target population, implementation challenges and successful strategies, evaluation approaches, and the essential stakeholders. Data from each round were iteratively analyzed using descriptive statistics (quantitative data) and content analysis (qualitative data).
RESULTS: Out of 24 invitations sent, 17 completed the first round, and 11 completed all three rounds. Respondents were equally distributed between clinicians and researchers and 70% had used PROs via telehealth before the pandemic. Consensus was achieved and some of the relevant aspects are monitoring patients for applicability; individuals with chronic diseases as the target population; resources, staff buy-in, and clinical workflow as the implementation challenges and strategies; utilization metrics for evaluation; and clinicians and patients as essential stakeholders. Though consensus was not reached for the conceptualization of PROs using telehealth, the modified FDA definition of telehealth with the addition of its purpose, and the mode of administration was the most acceptable version. See attached table.
CONCLUSION: The expert consensus achieved provides important insights from an international perspective on how PROs are currently used via telehealth and the needed implementation support to advance their expansion in research and practice. Lack of consensus on the definition of PROs in telehealth signals the continued rapid evolution of their use and the need for additional research.
METHODS: Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus among international experts with a predetermined consensus threshold of 70%. Experts were mainly identified through the ISOQOL Clinical Practice SIG. Surveys asked a combination of structured and open-ended questions about the conceptualization of PROs in telehealth, its applicability, target population, implementation challenges and successful strategies, evaluation approaches, and the essential stakeholders. Data from each round were iteratively analyzed using descriptive statistics (quantitative data) and content analysis (qualitative data).
RESULTS: Out of 24 invitations sent, 17 completed the first round, and 11 completed all three rounds. Respondents were equally distributed between clinicians and researchers and 70% had used PROs via telehealth before the pandemic. Consensus was achieved and some of the relevant aspects are monitoring patients for applicability; individuals with chronic diseases as the target population; resources, staff buy-in, and clinical workflow as the implementation challenges and strategies; utilization metrics for evaluation; and clinicians and patients as essential stakeholders. Though consensus was not reached for the conceptualization of PROs using telehealth, the modified FDA definition of telehealth with the addition of its purpose, and the mode of administration was the most acceptable version. See attached table.
CONCLUSION: The expert consensus achieved provides important insights from an international perspective on how PROs are currently used via telehealth and the needed implementation support to advance their expansion in research and practice. Lack of consensus on the definition of PROs in telehealth signals the continued rapid evolution of their use and the need for additional research.