Are we missing the Institute of Medicine's mark? A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures assessing quality of patient-centred cancer care.
BACKGROUND
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has endorsed six dimensions of patient-centredness as crucial to providing quality healthcare. These dimensions outline that care must be: 1) respectful to patients' values, preferences, and expressed needs; 2) coordinated and integrated; 3) provide information, communication, and education; 4) ensure physical comfort; 5) provide emotional support-relieving fear and anxiety; and 6) involve family and friends. However, whether patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) comprehensively cover these dimensions remains unexplored. This systematic review examined whether PROMs designed to assess the quality of patient-centred cancer care addressed all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care and the psychometric properties of these measures.


METHODS
Medline, PsycINFO, Current Contents, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus were searched to retrieve published studies describing the development and psychometric properties of PROMs assessing the quality of patient-centred cancer care. Two authors determined if eligible PROMs included the six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care and evaluated the adequacy of psychometric properties based on recommended criteria for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, face/content validity, construct validity and cross-cultural adaptation.


RESULTS
Across all 21 PROMs, the most commonly included IOM dimension of patient-centred care was "information, communication and education" (19 measures). In contrast, only five measures assessed the "involvement of family and friends." Two measures included one IOM-endorsed patient-centred care dimension, two measures had two dimensions, seven measures had three dimensions, five measures had four dimensions, and four measures had five dimensions. One measure, the Indicators (Non-small Cell Lung Cancer), covered all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care, but had adequate face/content validity only. Eighteen measures met the recommended adequacy criteria for construct validity, 15 for face/content validity, seven for internal consistency, three for cross-cultural adaptation and no measure for test-retest reliability.


CONCLUSIONS
There are no psychometrically rigorous PROMs developed with cancer patients that capture all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care. Using more than one measure or expanding existing measures to cover all six patient-centred care dimensions could improve assessment and delivery of patient-centred care. Construction of new comprehensive measures with acceptable psychometric properties that can be used with the general cancer population may also be warranted.
Health Behaviour Research Group, Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, University of Newcastle & Hunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. Flora.Tzelepis@newcastle.edu.au.
Flora
F
Tzelepis
Shiho K
SK
Rose
Robert W
RW
Sanson-Fisher
Tara
T
Clinton-McHarg
Mariko L
ML
Carey
Christine L
CL
Paul
D019033:Delivery of Health Care, Integrated / Q000592:standards*; D019983:Guideline Adherence / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D008495:Medical Oncology / Q000592:standards*; D015969:National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, U.S., Health and Medicine Division; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000628:therapy*; D010043:Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care / Q000592:standards*; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic / Q000592:standards; D010818:Practice Patterns, Physicians' / Q000592:standards; D011594:Psychometrics; D019984:Quality Indicators, Health Care / Q000592:standards*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires / Q000592:standards*; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014481:United States