To Örebro University

oru.seÖrebro University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The Real-World Global Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes for the Care of Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.
Department of Gastroenterology, CHU Liège University Hospital, Liège, Belgium.
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, Translational Gastroenterology Unit, and Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Show others and affiliations
2023 (English)In: Crohn's & colitis 360, E-ISSN 2631-827X, Vol. 5, no 2, article id otad006Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: Many patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been developed for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) without recommendations for clinical use. PROs differ from physician-reported disease activity indices; they assess patients' perceptions of their symptoms, functional status, mental health, and quality of life, among other areas. We sought to investigate the current global use and barriers to using PROs in clinical practice for IBD.

METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was performed. An electronic questionnaire was sent to an international group of providers who care for patients with IBD.

RESULTS: There were 194 respondents, including adult/pediatric gastroenterologists, advanced practice providers, and colorectal surgeons from 5 continents. The majority (80%) use PROs in clinical practice, 65% frequently found value in routine use, and 50% frequently found PROs influenced management. Thirty-one different PROs for IBD were reportedly used. Barriers included not being familiar with PROs, not knowing how to incorporate PRO results into clinical practice, lack of electronic medical record integration, and time constraints. Most (91%) agreed it would be beneficial to have an accepted set of consistently used PROs. The majority (60%) thought that there should be some cultural differences in PROs used globally but that PROs for IBD should be consistent around the world.

CONCLUSIONS: PROs are used frequently in clinical practice with wide variation in which are used and how they influence management. Education about PROs and how to use and interpret an accepted set of PROs would decrease barriers for use and allow for global harmonization.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Oxford University Press, 2023. Vol. 5, no 2, article id otad006
Keywords [en]
Crohn’s disease, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), patient-centered care, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), ulcerative colitis
National Category
Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-105105DOI: 10.1093/crocol/otad006ISI: 000946926200001PubMedID: 36937140Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85153405041OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-105105DiVA, id: diva2:1744833
Available from: 2023-03-21 Created: 2023-03-21 Last updated: 2025-02-11Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Halfvarson, Jonas

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Halfvarson, Jonas
By organisation
School of Medical Sciences
Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 18 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf