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

• Published in: BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2015-04, Vol.122 (5), p.615-622
• Main Authors: Preston, NJ, Wilson, N, Wood, NJ, Brine, J, Ferreira, J, Brearley, SG
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Cancer; Clinical outcomes; Delivery of Health Care, Integrated - standards; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female - psychology; Genital Neoplasms, Female - therapy; gynaecological oncology; Gynecology; Humans; Medical Oncology - methods; Medical Oncology - organization & administration; Medical Oncology - standards; Medical Oncology - trends; metrics; Oncology; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - standards; outcomes; patient‐reported outcome measures; psychometric properties; Psychometrics; Quality Indicators, Health Care - standards; Quantitative psychology; Reproducibility of Results; Self Report - standards; Surveys and Questionnaires - standards; Systematic review; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 1470-0328; 1471-0528
• DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13251

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 (QUEST GY); (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.