Defining a Research Agenda for Patient-Reported Outcomes in Surgery
Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Importance: Identifying timely and important research questions using relevant patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in surgery remains paramount in the current medical climate. The inaugural Patient-Reported Outcomes in Surgery (PROS) Conference brought together stakeholders in PROs research in surgery with the aim of creating a research agenda to help determine future directions and advance cross-disciplinary collaboration. Objective: To create a research agenda to help determine future directions and advance cross-disciplinary collaboration on the use of PROs in surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: An iterative web-based interface was used to create a conference-based, modified Delphi survey for registrants at the PROS Conference (January 29-30, 2015), including surgeons, PRO researchers, payers, and other stakeholders. In round 1, research items were generated from qualitative review of responses to open-ended prompts. In round 2, items were ranked using a 5-point Likert scale; attendees were also asked to submit any new items. In round 3, the top 30 items and newly submitted items were redistributed for final ranking using a 3-point Likert scale. The top 20 items by mean rating were selected for the research agenda. Main Outcomes and Measures: An expert-generated research agenda on PROs in surgery. Results: Of the 143 people registered for the conference, 137 provided valid email addresses. There was a wide range of attendees, with the 3 most common groups being plastic surgeons (28 [19.6%]), general surgeons (19 [13.3%]), and researchers (25 [17.5%]). In round 1, participants submitted 459 items, which were reduced through qualitative review to 53 distinct items across 7 themes of PROs research. A research agenda was formulated after 2 successive rounds of ranking. The research agenda identified 3 themes important for future PROs research in surgery: (1) PROs in the decision-making process, (2) integrating PROs into the electronic health record, and (3) measuring quality in surgery with PROs. Conclusions and Relevance: The PROS Conference research agenda was created using a modified Delphi survey of stakeholders that will help researchers, surgeons, and funders identify crucial areas of future PROs research in surgery.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Defining a Research Agenda for Patient-Reported Outcomes in Surgery
- Date Crossref
- 01/10/2016
- Éditeur
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Où se fait cette recherche
-
NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Cornell University pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
New York Hospital Queens pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Presbyterian Hospital Department of Surgery pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Weill Cornell Medical Center pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Northwestern University Departments of Medical Social Sciences pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
University of Washington Department of Surgery pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery pays non établi dans la noticeInstitution
-
Weill Cornell Medical College Department of Medicine pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Colorectal Service pays non établi dans la noticeInstitution
NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, Cornell University et New York Hospital Queens, avec 8 autres affiliations.
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.