Benefits of and barriers to using patient-rated outcome measures in athletic training

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Deutscher übersetzter Titel:Nutzen von und Hindernisse für die Verwendung von "Patient-rated Outcome Measures" in der Sportphysiotherapie
Autor:Snyder Valier, Alison R.; Jennings, Amy L.; Parsons, John T.; Vela, Luzita I.
Erschienen in:Journal of athletic training
Veröffentlicht:49 (2014), 5, S. 674-683, Lit.
Format: Literatur (SPOLIT)
Publikationstyp: Zeitschriftenartikel
Medienart: Elektronische Ressource (online) Gedruckte Ressource
Sprache:Englisch
ISSN:1062-6050, 0160-8320, 1938-162X
DOI:10.4085/1062-6050-49.3.15
Schlagworte:
Online Zugang:
Erfassungsnummer:PU201505003517
Quelle:BISp

Abstract

Context: Patient-rated outcome measures (PROMs) are important for driving treatment decisions and determining treatment effectiveness. However, athletic trainers (ATs) rarely use them; understanding why may facilitate strategies for collection of these outcomes. Objective: To identify the benefits of and barriers to using PROMs in athletic training. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Web-based survey. Patients or Other Participants: A total of 1469 randomly sampled ATs (age = 36.8 ± 9.8 years; 48% female) working in the college/university, 2-year institution, secondary school, clinic, hospital, or industrial/occupational setting. Intervention(s): An e-mail was sent to ATs inviting them to complete a survey regarding the use, benefits, and barriers of PROMs. Athletic trainers who indicated they used PROMs (AT-PRs) completed 65 questions about the benefits of and barriers to their use. Athletic trainers who indicated no use of PROMs (AT-NONs) completed 21 questions about barriers of use. Main Outcome Measure(s): Dependent variables were the endorsements for the benefits of and barriers to the use of PROMs. Results: A total of 458 ATs initiated the survey and 421 (AT-PR = 26%, AT-NON = 74%) completed it (response rate = 28.7%). The most frequently endorsed benefits by AT-PRs were enhancing communication with patients (90%) and other health care professionals (80%), directing patient care (87%), and increasing examination efficiency (80%). The most frequently endorsed barriers by AT-PRs were that PROMs are time consuming (44%), difficult (36%), and confusing (31%) for patients and time consuming for clinicians to score and interpret (29%). The most frequently endorsed problems by AT-NONs were that PROMs are time consuming for clinicians to score and interpret (31%), time consuming (46%) and irrelevant to patients (28%), and lacking a support structure for clinicians (29%). Conclusions: These results suggest that, although benefits to using PROMs exist, there are also barriers. Barriers are similar for AT-PRs and AT-NONs. Strategies to decrease barriers and facilitate the use of PROMs warrant investigation. Verf.-Referat