Premium
Patient‐reported outcome measures for use in gynaecological oncology: a systematic review
Author(s) -
Preston NJ,
Wilson N,
Wood NJ,
Brine J,
Ferreira J,
Brearley SG
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
bjog: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.157
H-Index - 164
eISSN - 1471-0528
pISSN - 1470-0328
DOI - 10.1111/1471-0528.13251
Subject(s) - prom , medicine , gynaecological cancer , patient reported outcome , endometrial cancer , gynecologic oncology , cervical cancer , medline , family medicine , quality of life (healthcare) , cancer , gynecology , medical physics , oncology , physical therapy , obstetrics , nursing , political science , law
Background Patient‐reported outcome measures ( PROM s) are used to assess the impact of health care on a patient's health. Within the gynaecological oncology setting, multiple PROM s have been adopted but no assessment has been made in terms of their psychometric qualities and robustness. Objectives To undertake a systematic review to identify the most psychometrically robust and appropriate PROM used in the gynaecological oncology setting. Search strategy A search of the bibliographic database of the Oxford PROM group, plus nine additional databases, was carried out along with citation‐tracking and hand searches. Selection criteria Studies examining the psychometric properties of outcome measures tested in gynaecological cancer populations were selected by three blinded reviewers. Data collection and analysis Studies were independently assessed and data extracted. Analysis included an appraisal of the psychometric properties and functionality of the included PROM s to guide recommendations. Main results Eighteen PROM s tested in gynaecological oncology settings were identified. These were categorised into seven areas of focus, and the most psychometrically robust tools were identified: (1) generic (no recommendation); (2) general cancer ( EORTC QLQ ‐ C 30 and FACT ‐ G ); (3) pelvic cancer ( QUEST GY ); (4) ovarian cancer ( EORTC QLQ ‐ OV 28); (5) cervical cancer ( EORTC QLQ ‐ CX 24); (6) endometrial cancer ( EORTC QLQ ‐ EN 24); and (7) vulval cancer ( FACT ‐V). Author's conclusions Seven PROM s were recommended for use in six gynaecological populations. No single tool was identified that had been tested in all disease groups. Some showed promise, but a lack of conceptual clarity about the core outcomes and the rationale for use will require further testing using well‐constructed studies.