Elizabeth Gibbons

Bio: Elizabeth Gibbons is an academic researcher from University of Oxford. The author has contributed to research in topics: Patient-reported outcome & Quality of life (healthcare). The author has an hindex of 18, co-authored 63 publications receiving 1702 citations. Previous affiliations of Elizabeth Gibbons include Boston Children's Hospital.

How do patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support clinician-patient communication and patient care? A realist synthesis

Abstract: In this paper, we report the findings of a realist synthesis that aimed to understand how and in what circumstances patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support patient-clinician communication and subsequent care processes and outcomes in clinical care We tested two overarching programme theories: (1) PROMs completion prompts a process of self-reflection and supports patients to raise issues with clinicians and (2) PROMs scores raise clinicians’ awareness of patients’ problems and prompts discussion and action We examined how the structure of the PROM and care context shaped the ways in which PROMs support clinician-patient communication and subsequent care processes PROMs completion prompts patients to reflect on their health and gives them permission to raise issues with clinicians However, clinicians found standardised PROMs completion during patient assessments sometimes constrained rather than supported communication In response, clinicians adapted their use of PROMs to render them compatible with the ongoing management of patient relationships Individualised PROMs supported dialogue by enabling the patient to tell their story In oncology, PROMs completion outside of the consultation enabled clinicians to identify problematic symptoms when the PROM acted as a substitute rather than addition to the clinical encounter and when the PROM focused on symptoms and side effects, rather than health related quality of life (HRQoL) Patients did not always feel it was appropriate to discuss emotional, functional or HRQoL issues with doctors and doctors did not perceive this was within their remit This paper makes two important contributions to the literature First, our findings show that PROMs completion is not a neutral act of information retrieval but can change how patients think about their condition Second, our findings reveal that the ways in which clinicians use PROMs is shaped by their relationships with patients and professional roles and boundaries Future research should examine how PROMs completion and feedback shapes and is influenced by the process of building relationships with patients, rather than just their impact on information exchange and decision making

Inter-rater agreement and reliability of the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments) Checklist

Abstract: Background: The COSMIN checklist is a tool for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health-related patient-reported outcomes. The aim of this study is to determine the inter-rater agreement and reliability of each item score of the COSMIN checklist (n = 114). Methods: 75 articles evaluating measurement properties were randomly selected from the bibliographic database compiled by the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Group, Oxford, UK. Raters were asked to assess the methodological quality of three articles, using the COSMIN checklist. In a one-way design, percentage agreement and intraclass kappa coefficients or quadratic-weighted kappa coefficients were calculated for each item. Results: 88 raters participated. Of the 75 selected articles, 26 articles were rated by four to six participants, and 49 by two or three participants. Overall, percentage agreement was appropriate (68% was above 80% agreement), and the kappa coefficients for the COSMIN items were low (61% was below 0.40, 6% was above 0.75). Reasons for low inter-rater agreement were need for subjective judgement, and accustom to different standards, terminology and definitions. Conclusions: Results indicated that raters often choose the same response option, but that it is difficult on item level to distinguish between articles. When using the COSMIN checklist in a systematic review, we recommend getting some training and experience, completing it by two independent raters, and reaching consensus on one final rating. Instructions for using the checklist are improved.

Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care

Abstract: Background: The feedback of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data is intended to support the care of individual patients and to act as a quality improvement (QI) strategy. Objectives: To (1) identify the ideas and assumptions underlying how individual and aggregated PROMs data are intended to improve patient care, and (2) review the evidence to examine the circumstances in which and processes through which PROMs feedback improves patient care. Design: Two separate but related realist syntheses: (1) feedback of aggregate PROMs and performance data to improve patient care, and (2) feedback of individual PROMs data to improve patient care. Interventions: Aggregate – feedback and public reporting of PROMs, patient experience data and performance data to hospital providers and primary care organisations. Individual – feedback of PROMs in oncology, palliative care and the care of people with mental health problems in primary and secondary care settings. Main outcome measures: Aggregate – providers’ responses, attitudes and experiences of using PROMs and performance data to improve patient care. Individual – providers’ and patients’ experiences of using PROMs data to raise issues with clinicians, change clinicians’ communication practices, change patient management and improve patient well-being. Data sources: Searches of electronic databases and forwards and backwards citation tracking. Review methods: Realist synthesis to identify, test and refine programme theories about when, how and why PROMs feedback leads to improvements in patient care. Results: Providers were more likely to take steps to improve patient care in response to the feedback and public reporting of aggregate PROMs and performance data if they perceived that these data were credible, were aimed at improving patient care, and were timely and provided a clear indication of the source of the problem. However, implementing substantial and sustainable improvement to patient care required system-wide approaches. In the care of individual patients, PROMs function more as a tool to support patients in raising issues with clinicians than they do in substantially changing clinicians’ communication practices with patients. Patients valued both standardised and individualised PROMs as a tool to raise issues, but thought is required as to which patients may benefit and which may not. In settings such as palliative care and psychotherapy, clinicians viewed individualised PROMs as useful to build rapport and support the therapeutic process. PROMs feedback did not substantially shift clinicians’ communication practices or focus discussion on psychosocial issues; this required a shift in clinicians’ perceptions of their remit. Strengths and limitations: There was a paucity of research examining the feedback of aggregate PROMs data to providers, and we drew on evidence from interventions with similar programme theories (other forms of performance data) to test our theories. Conclusions: PROMs data act as ‘tin openers’ rather than ‘dials’. Providers need more support and guidance on how to collect their own internal data, how to rule out alternative explanations for their outlier status and how to explore the possible causes of their outlier status. There is also tension between PROMs as a QI strategy versus their use in the care of individual patients; PROMs that clinicians find useful in assessing patients, such as individualised measures, are not useful as indicators of service quality. Future work: Future research should (1) explore how differently performing providers have responded to aggregate PROMs feedback, and how organisations have collected PROMs data both for individual patient care and to improve service quality; and (2) explore whether or not and how incorporating PROMs into patients’ electronic records allows multiple different clinicians to receive PROMs feedback, discuss it with patients and act on the data to improve patient care.

Proceedings of Patient Reported Outcome Measure’s (PROMs) Conference Sheffield 2016: advances in patient reported outcomes research

Abstract: S1 Using computerized adaptive testing Tim Croudace S2 Well-being: what is it, how does it compare to health and what are the implications of using it to inform health policy John Brazier O1 “Am I going to get better?”—Using PROMs to inform patients about the likely benefit of surgery Nils Gutacker, Andrew Street O2 Identifying Patient Reported Outcome Measures for an electronic Personal Health Record Dan Robotham, Samantha Waterman, Diana Rose, Safarina Satkunanathan, Til Wykes O3 Examining the change process over time qualitatively: transformative learning and response shift Nasrin Nasr, Pamela Enderby O4 Developing a PROM to evaluate self-management in diabetes (HASMID): giving patients a voice Jill Carlton, Donna Rowen, Jackie Elliott, John Brazier, Katherine Stevens, Hasan Basarir, Alex Labeit O5 Development of the Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire (PCOQ) Mairead Murphy, Sandra Hollinghurst, Chris Salisbury O6 Developing the PKEX score- a multimodal assessment tool for patients with shoulder problems Dominic Marley, James Wilson, Amy Barrat, Bibhas Roy O7 Applying multiple imputation to multi-item patient reported outcome measures: advantages and disadvantages of imputing at the item, sub-scale or score level Ines Rombach, Orlaith Burke, Crispin Jenkinson, Alastair Gray, Oliver Rivero-Arias O8 Integrating Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) into routine primary care for patients with multimorbidity: a feasibility study Ian Porter, Jaheeda Gangannagaripalli, Charlotte Bramwell, Jose M. Valderas O9 eRAPID: electronic self-report and management of adverse-events for pelvic radiotherapy (RT) patients Patricia Holch, Susan Davidson, Jacki Routledge, Ann Henry, Kevin Franks, Alex Gilbert, Kate Absolom & Galina Velikova O10 Patient reported outcomes (PROMs) based recommendation in clinical guidance for the management of chronic conditions in the United Kingdom Ian Porter, Jose M.Valderas O11 Cross-sectional and longitudinal parameter shifts in epidemiological data: measurement invariance and response shifts in cohort and survey data describing the UK’s Quality of Life Jan R. Boehnke O12 Patient-reported outcomes within health technology decision making: current status and implications for future policy Andrew Trigg, Ruth Howells O13 Can social care needs and well-being be explained by the EQ-5D? Analysis of Health Survey for England dataset Jeshika Singh, Subhash Pokhrel, Louise Longworth O14 Where patients and policy meet: exploring individual-level use of the Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire (LTCQ) Caroline Potter, Cheryl Hunter, Laura Kelly, Elizabeth Gibbons, Julian Forder, Angela Coulter, Ray Fitzpatrick, Michele Peters

Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health

Abstract: Policies and interventions in the health-care system may have a wide range of effects on multiple patient outcomes and operate through many clinical processes. This presents a challenge for their evaluation, especially when the effect on any one patient is small. In this essay, we explore the nature of the health-care system and discuss how the empirical evidence produced within it relates to the underlying processes governing patient outcomes. We argue for an evidence synthesis framework that first models the underlying phenomena common across different health-care settings and then makes inferences regarding these phenomena from data. Bayesian methods are recommended. We provide the examples of electronic prescribing and increased consultant provision at the weekend.

Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste

Abstract: By Pierre Bourdieu (London: Routledge, 2010), xxx + 607 pp. £15.99 paper. A combination of social theory, statistical data, illustrations, and interviews, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judg...

About the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence - NICE.

Abstract:

Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Status Epilepticus

Abstract: Status epilepticus (SE) treatment strategies vary substantially from one institution to another due to the lack of data to support one treatment over another. To provide guidance for the acute treatment of SE in critically ill patients, the Neurocritical Care Society organized a writing committee to evaluate the literature and develop an evidence-based and expert consensus practice guideline. Literature searches were conducted using PubMed and studies meeting the criteria established by the writing committee were evaluated. Recommendations were developed based on the literature using standardized assessment methods from the American Heart Association and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Develop- ment, and Evaluation systems, as well as expert opinion when sufficient data were lacking.

The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content

Abstract: Background: The COSMIN checklist (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments) was developed in an international Delphi study to evaluate the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health-related patient reported outcomes (HR-PROs). In this paper, we explain our choices for the design requirements and preferred statistical methods for which no evidence is available in the literature or on which the Delphi panel members had substantial discussion. Methods: The issues described in this paper are a reflection of the Delphi process in which 43 panel members participated. Results: The topics discussed are internal consistency (relevance for reflective and formative models, and distinction with unidimensionality), content validity (judging relevance and comprehensiveness), hypotheses testing as an aspect of construct validity (specificity of hypotheses), criterion validity (relevance for PROs), and responsiveness (concept and relation to validity, and (in) appropriate measures). Conclusions: We expect that this paper will contribute to a better understanding of the rationale behind the items, thereby enhancing the acceptance and use of the COSMIN checklist.