Primary Care Outcomes: Stage 2
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Developing and testing a generic patient-reported outcome tool for primary care
IRAS ID
165882
Contact name
Mairead Murphy
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University of Bristol
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier
CT1835, Bristol University Secretary's Office insurance number
Duration of Study in the UK
1 years, 7 months, 1 days
Research summary
In the light of changing service provision across the NHS, including primary care, there is a practical need to assess different forms of service delivery, basing this on outcomes which matter to patients. Such evaluation would benefit greatly from a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that is meaningful and relevant to patients and practitioners. A wide-range of PROM tools is available. However, all of these have significant disadvantages as regards their use in primary care service evaluation. A key challenge is that, as the first point of contact for any health-related need, primary care clinicians often address multiple patient problems, with a range of outcomes for each problem.
This study aims to develop a PROM for primary care which can be used across different models of primary care for use in service evaluations. A separate qualitative study has already been carried out to inform this one. (REC ref: 13/EM/0197). Through that study, 31 outcomes in 3 overall groups were identified as key primary care outcomes. These groups were Health empowerment, Health status and Health perceptions. A systematic review also identified that there were no PROMs available coving all these constructs. This review identified benefits and downsides to two types of PROM: status (measuring how a person is at a point in time) and transitional (measuring how a person has changed over a defined period of time).In this study, PROMs will be developed based on the outcomes previously identified. This will be done as follows:
1. Developing two patient-reported outcome tools (one status and one transitional) and testing the face validity, acceptability and feasibility of these using cognitive interviews;
2. Testing the validity and reliability of the draft tools to primary care in a cross-sectional sample.REC name
London - Central Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
14/LO/2236
Date of REC Opinion
9 Dec 2014
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion