Improving Real-World Evidence on Shared Decision Making Through Joint Clinician and Patient Reported Outcomes

Author(s)

Tkatch R1, Russell K1, Hamel L2, Carlyle M3, Buikema A3
1Optum, Oak Park, MI, USA, 2Wayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI, USA, 3Optum, Eden Prairie, MN, USA

OBJECTIVES: Clinical outcomes assessments can be a powerful tool in generating real-world-data (RWD). Research consistently demonstrates that shared-decision making between patients and clinicians and agreement on the dyadic exchanges of patient/provider clinical communication can lead to improved patient care and associated outcomes (e.g., treatment, adherence). Our understanding of patient-provider clinical communication and its associated outcomes is limited by the lack of validated instruments that measure clinician reported outcomes (ClinRO). This gap creates a challenge in generating generalizable RWD to effectively inform how to improve patient outcomes. This study aims to describe literature where both ClinROs and PROs are measured, methods used, and to identify areas for improving measurement of clinical dyadic communication.

METHODS: A targeted review of recent literature with both ClinROs and PROs was conducted. Methodology and instruments are described and evaluated for future relevant research.

RESULTS: Studies employing both ClinRO and PRO measures are largely qualitative with small sample sizes. They rely heavily on PROs with minimal contribution from ClinROs. Shared-decision making is the construct most frequently measured using PROs and ClinROs. Other constructs measured dyadically often use custom designed questions that are not validated (e.g., barriers, access).

CONCLUSIONS: The dearth of validated ClinROs and PROs integrated into RWD data suggests a considerable gap in the measurement of clinical dyadic communication. Assessed studies were generally qualitative, with small sample sizes, used non-validated measurement, and therefore, not generalizable. RWD are used to inform stakeholder (clinicians/industry/payers) decision-making and transform patient care. Studies employing validated PROs and ClinROs provide more meaningful data on the patient journey. These data can inform the design of interventions and programs to improve patient care.

Researchers have an opportunity to build a roadmap for the development of validated tools to measure ClinROs and PROs simultaneously to maximize the full impact of these dyadic exchanges to generate valuable RWD.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2024-11, ISPOR Europe 2024, Barcelona, Spain

Value in Health, Volume 27, Issue 12, S2 (December 2024)

Code

SA19

Topic

Clinical Outcomes, Patient-Centered Research, Study Approaches

Topic Subcategory

Clinical Outcomes Assessment, Instrument Development, Validation, & Translation, Literature Review & Synthesis, Patient-reported Outcomes & Quality of Life Outcomes

Disease

No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×