Surgeon Engagement with Patient-Reported Measures in Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand Bariatric Practices

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Purpose

Patient-reported measures are an important emerging metric in outcome monitoring; however, they remain ill-defined and underutilized in bariatric clinical practice. This study aimed to determine the characteristics of patient-reported measures employed in bariatric practices across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, including barriers to their implementation and to what extent clinicians are receptive to their use.

Methods

An online survey was distributed to all bariatric surgeons actively contributing to the Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand Bariatric Surgery Registry ( n = 176). Participants reported their use of patient-reported measures and identified the most important and useful outcomes of patient-reported data for clinical practice.

Results

Responses from 64 participants reported on 120 public and private bariatric practices across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Most participants reported no collection of any patient-reported measure (39 of 64; 60.9%), citing insufficient staff time or resources as the primary barrier to the collection of both patient-reported experience measures (34 of 102 practices; 33.3%) and patient-reported outcome measures (30 of 84 practices; 35.7%). Participants indicated data collection by the Registry would be useful (47 of 57; 82.5%), highlighting the most valuable application to be a monitoring tool, facilitating increased understanding of patient health needs, increased reporting of symptoms, and enhanced patient-physician communication.

Conclusion

Despite the current lack of patient-reported measures, there is consensus that such data would be valuable in bariatric practices. Widespread collection of patient-reported measures by registries could improve the collective quality of the data, while avoiding implementation barriers faced by individual surgeons and hospitals.

Graphical abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11695-022-06237-z.

Related collections

Most cited references 31

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Exploring physician specialist response rates to web-based surveys

Ceara Tess Cunningham, Hude Quan, Brenda R. Hemmelgarn … (2015)

Background Survey research in healthcare is an important tool to collect information about healthcare delivery, service use and overall issues relating to quality of care. Unfortunately, physicians are often a group with low survey response rates and little research has looked at response rates among physician specialists. For these reasons, the purpose of this project was to explore survey response rates among physician specialists in a large metropolitan Canadian city. Methods As part of a larger project to look at physician payment plans, an online survey about medical billing practices was distributed to 904 physicians from various medical specialties. The primary method for physicians to complete the survey was via the Internet using a well-known and established survey company (www.surveymonkey.com). Multiple methods were used to encourage survey response such as individual personalized email invitations, multiple reminders, and a draw for three gift certificate prizes were used to increase response rate. Descriptive statistics were used to assess response rates and reasons for non-response. Results Overall survey response rate was 35.0%. Response rates varied by specialty: Neurology/neurosurgery (46.6%); internal medicine (42.9%); general surgery (29.6%); pediatrics (29.2%); and psychiatry (27.1%). Non-respondents listed lack of time/survey burden as the main reason for not responding to our survey. Conclusions Our survey results provide a look into the challenges of collecting healthcare research where response rates to surveys are often low. The findings presented here should help researchers in planning future survey based studies. Findings from this study and others suggest smaller monetary incentives for each individual may be a more appropriate way to increase response rates.

0 comments Cited 193 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why?

Joanne Greenhalgh (2009)

Precisely defining the different applications of patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) in clinical practice can be difficult. This is because the intervention is complex and varies amongst different studies in terms of the type of PRO used, how the PRO is fed back, and to whom it is fed back. A theory-driven approach is used to describe six different applications of PROs in clinical practice. The evidence for the impact of these applications on the process and outcomes of care are summarised. Possible explanations for the limited impact of PROs on patient management are then discussed and directions for future research are highlighted. The applications of PROs in clinical practice include screening tools, monitoring tools, as a method of promoting patient-centred care, as a decision aid, as a method of facilitating communication amongst multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), and as a means of monitoring the quality of patient care. Evidence from randomised controlled trials suggests that the use of PROs in clinical practice is valuable in improving the discussion and detection of HRQoL problems but has less of an impact on how clinicians manage patient problems or on subsequent patient outcomes. Many of the reasons for this may lie in the ways in which PROs fit (or do not fit) into the routine ways in which patients and clinicians communicate with each other, how clinicians make decisions, and how healthcare as a whole is organised. Future research needs to identify ways in with PROs can be better incorporated into the routine care of patients by combining qualitative and quantitative methods and adopting appropriate trial designs.

0 comments Cited 188 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative research.

Hilary Browne, Joanne Greenhalgh, Maria Boyce (2014)

To synthesise qualitative studies that investigated the experiences of healthcare professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to improve the quality of care. A qualitative systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed, PsycINFO and CINAHL with no time restrictions. Hand searching was also performed. Eligible studies were evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme toolkit for qualitative studies. A thematic synthesis identified common themes across studies. Study characteristics were examined to explain differences in findings. All healthcare settings. Healthcare professionals. Professionals' views of PROMs after receiving PROMs feedback about individual patients or groups of patients. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators to the use of PROMs emerged within four main themes: collecting and incorporating the data (practical), valuing the data (attitudinal), making sense of the data (methodological) and using the data to make changes to patient care (impact). Professionals value PROMs when they are useful for the clinical decision-making process. Practical barriers to the routine use of PROMs are prominent when the correct infrastructure is not in place before commencing data collection and when their use is disruptive to normal work routines. Technology can play a greater role in processing the information in the most efficient manner. Improvements to the interpretability of PROMs should increase their use. Attitudes to the use of PROMs may be improved by engaging professionals in the planning stage of the intervention and by ensuring a high level of transparency around the rationale for data collection. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

0 comments Cited 163 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Alyssa J. Budin:

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8210-991X

alyssa.budin@monash.edu

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Obes Surg

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Obes Surg

Title: Obesity Surgery

Publisher: Springer US (New York )

ISSN (Print): 0960-8923

ISSN (Electronic): 1708-0428

Publication date (Electronic): 16 August 2022

Publication date PMC-release: 16 August 2022

Publication date (Print): 2022

Volume: 32

Issue: 10

Pages: 3410-3418

Affiliations

[1 ]GRID grid.1002.3, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7857, Department of Surgery, , Monash University, ; The Alfred Centre, Melbourne, VIC 3004 Australia

[2 ]GRID grid.413105.2, ISNI 0000 0000 8606 2560, Department of Medicine, , St Vincent’s Hospital, University of Melbourne, ; Melbourne, VIC 3000 Australia

[3 ]GRID grid.9654.e, ISNI 0000 0004 0372 3343, Department of Surgery, , The University of Auckland, ; Auckland, 1142 New Zealand

[4 ]GRID grid.413188.7, ISNI 0000 0001 0098 1855, Counties Manukau District Health Board, ; Otahuhu, Auckland, 1640 New Zealand

[5 ]GRID grid.1013.3, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 834X, The Boden Institute, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, ; Camperdown, NSW 2006 Australia

[6 ]GRID grid.267362.4, ISNI 0000 0004 0432 5259, Alfred Health, ; The Alfred Centre, Melbourne, VIC 3004 Australia

Author information

Alyssa J. Budin http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8210-991X

Article

Publisher ID: 6237

DOI: 10.1007/s11695-022-06237-z

PMC ID: 9532331

PubMed ID: 35974291

SO-VID: bfc5f0d1-ab0e-4a76-be20-ee3c97b3bc46

License:

Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

History

Date received : 17 March 2022

Date revision received : 27 July 2022

Date accepted : 4 August 2022

Funding

Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000925, National Health and Medical Research Council;

Award ID: 1178482

Award Recipient : Priya Sumithran

Custom metadata

ScienceOpen disciplines: Surgery

Keywords: bariatric surgery,patient-reported measures,patient-reported outcomes,health-related quality of life,psychosocial health

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Surgery

Keywords: bariatric surgery, patient-reported measures, patient-reported outcomes, health-related quality of life, psychosocial health

Surgeon Engagement with Patient-Reported Measures in Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand Bariatric Practices

Read this article at

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Graphical abstract

Supplementary Information

Related collections

25th European Students' Conference

Most cited references 31

Exploring physician specialist response rates to web-based surveys

The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why?

The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative research.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author information

Article

History

Funding

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 398

Cited by 2

Most referenced authors 322