4.5 Review

Patient reported outcomes and patient empowerment in clinical genetics services

期刊

CLINICAL GENETICS
卷 88, 期 2, 页码 114-121

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cge.12520

关键词

clinical genetics services; genetic counseling; patient benefits; patient empowerment; patient-reported outcome measures; patient-reported outcomes

资金

  1. National Institute for Social Care & Health Research through an Academic Health Sciences Collaboration Clinical Research Time Fellowship
  2. MRC [G0601696] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [G0601696] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evaluation of clinical genetics services (CGS), including genetic counseling and genetic testing, has been problematic. Patient mortality and morbidity are unlikely to be directly improved by interventions offered in CGS. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are not routinely measured in CGS evaluation, but this may change as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) become a key part of how healthcare services are managed and funded across the world. However, there is no clear consensus about which PROMs are most useful for CGS evaluation. This review summarizes the published research on how PROs from CGS have been measured and how patients may benefit from using those services, with a focus on patient empowerment. Many patient benefits (PROs) identified repeatedly in the research literature can be re-interpreted within a patient empowerment framework. Other important PROs identified include family functioning, social functioning, altruism, sense of purpose, enabling development of future research and treatment/participating in research. Well-validated measures are available to capture (dimensions of) patient empowerment. Although generic measures of family functioning are available, suitable measures capturing social functioning, development of future treatments, and altruism were not identified in this review. Patient empowerment provides one useful approach to measuring PROs from CGS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据