Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Patient-reported outcome measures for use in gy...
View graph of relations

Patient-reported outcome measures for use in gynaecological oncology: a systematic review

Research output: Contribution to journalLiterature review

Published
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>04/2015
<mark>Journal</mark>BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Issue number5
Volume122
Number of pages8
Pages (from-to)615-622
<mark>State</mark>Published
Early online date5/01/15
<mark>Original language</mark>English

Abstract

Background

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to assess the impact of health care on a patient's health. Within the gynaecological oncology setting, multiple PROMs have been adopted but no assessment has been made in terms of their psychometric qualities and robustness.

Objectives

To undertake a systematic review to identify the most psychometrically robust and appropriate PROM used in the gynaecological oncology setting.

Search strategy

A search of the bibliographic database of the Oxford PROM group, plus nine additional databases, was carried out along with citation-tracking and hand searches.

Selection criteria

Studies examining the psychometric properties of outcome measures tested in gynaecological cancer populations were selected by three blinded reviewers.

Data collection and analysis

Studies were independently assessed and data extracted. Analysis included an appraisal of the psychometric properties and functionality of the included PROMs to guide recommendations.

Main results

Eighteen PROMs tested in gynaecological oncology settings were identified. These were categorised into seven areas of focus, and the most psychometrically robust tools were identified: (1) generic (no recommendation); (2) general cancer (EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G); (3) pelvic cancer (QUESTGY); (4) ovarian cancer (EORTC QLQ-OV28); (5) cervical cancer (EORTC QLQ-CX24); (6) endometrial cancer (EORTC QLQ-EN 24); and (7) vulval cancer (FACT-V).

Author's conclusions

Seven PROMs were recommended for use in six gynaecological populations. No single tool was identified that had been tested in all disease groups. Some showed promise, but a lack of conceptual clarity about the core outcomes and the rationale for use will require further testing using well-constructed studies.