The routine use of patient reported outcome measures in healthcare settingsBMJ 2010; 340 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c186 (Published 18 January 2010) Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c186
- Jill Dawson, senior research scientist 1, visiting professor 2,
- Helen Doll, senior medical statistician1,
- Ray Fitzpatrick, professor of public health1,
- Crispin Jenkinson, professor of health services research1,
- Andrew J Carr, Nuffield professor of orthopaedic surgery3
- 1Department of Public Health, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF
- 2Oxford Brookes University, School of Health and Social Care, Oxford OX3 0BP
- 3Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LD
- Correspondence to: J Dawson
- Accepted 7 September 2009
The use of patient reported outcome measures might seem to be quite straightforward; however, a number of pitfalls await clinicians with limited expertise. Jill Dawson and colleagues provide a guide for individuals keen to use patient reported outcome measures at a local level
We acknowledge the additional technical assistance with illustrations that was provided by Phillip Saunders, Unit Administrator, Department of Public Health (Health Services Research Unit), University of Oxford.
Contributors: All the authors have considerable experience in developing, evaluating, and applying questionnaires for patients and are currently involved in long term multicentre trials where patient reported outcomes are the main end points. JD and AJC have chiefly worked in the area of patient reported outcomes in the context of orthopaedic surgery. HD is a senior statistician specialising in the development and application of patient reported outcome measures and on randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. RF has worked on both patient reported outcomes and patient experience of care relating to a wide range of conditions and interventions, both surgical and long term medical. CJ has worked on both patient reported outcomes and patient experience of care, the latter related to his work with the Picker Institute Europe, Oxford, UK. All authors contributed to the writing of this paper. JD is the guarantor.
Competing interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare (1) No financial support for the submitted work from anyone other than their employer; (2) No financial relationships with commercial entities that might have an interest in the submitted work; (3) No spouses, partners, or children with relationships with commercial entities that might have an interest in the submitted work; (4) No non-financial interests that may be relevant to the submitted work.
Provenance and peer review: Commissioned, externally peer reviewed.
- Accepted 7 September 2009