4.6 Article

Montreal Accord on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) use series - Paper 1: introduction

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 89, Issue -, Pages 114-118

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.012

Keywords

Patient-reported outcomes; Patient-centered health care; Health care policy

Funding

  1. CIHR [126813-1]
  2. CRIR
  3. Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation
  4. FRQS

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Patient-centered health care, where we design and deliver care to address the needs and preferences of patients, represents an important paradigm shift. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are critical to capture the patient voice, understand how illness and treatments affect people, and establish how well services and treatments address what matters most to patients. O Objective: Originally developed for use in research, PROs are now used to monitor individuals and populations, manage care, evaluate services and providers, and inform policy. However, moving PROs beyond research settings incurs considerable methodological, organizational, technological, and ethical considerations. National collaborative networks of researchers, clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders can address these challenges by coordinating development, creating standards for use, sharing costs and delivery platforms, and improving widespread uptake of core sets of measures to better inform health care decisions and improve outcomes. Discussion: We introduce eight papers from researchers, clinicians, patients, and decision makers who participated in deliberations around creating a national network to accelerate the application and harmonized use of PROs in Canada. They offer a snap shot of the strategies that pioneers and innovative thinkers are using to integrate the patient voice into comprehensive care, research, and health policy planning of chronic diseases. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available