%0 Review
%T How to select and understand guidelines for patient-reported outcomes: a scoping review of existing guidance.
%A Kaneyasu T
%A Hoshino E
%A Naito M
%A Suzukamo Y
%A Miyazaki K
%A Kojima S
%A Yamaguchi T
%A Kawaguchi T
%A Miyaji T
%A Nakajima TE
%A Shimozuma K
%J BMC Health Serv Res
%V 24
%N 1
%D 2024 Mar 13
%M 38481204
%F 2.908
%R 10.1186/s12913-024-10707-8
%X BACKGROUND: Over the past few decades, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been used to understand patient health conditions better. Therefore, numerous PRO measures (questionnaires) and guidelines or guidance have been developed. However, it is challenging to select target guidance from among the many available guidance and to understand the chosen guidance. This study comprehensively collected the existing PRO guidance for clinical trials or studies and practices to support novice PRO users in academia, industry, clinical practice, and regulatory and reimbursement decision-making.
METHODS: For the scoping review, we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Google Books, WorldCat, and the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Bookshelf databases from 2009 to 2023. The eligibility criteria were PRO guidance for clinical trials, clinical practice, or application such as health technology assessment. Those guidance cover aspects such as quality of life (QOL), PRO, health-related QOL, health state utilities, psychometric requirements, implementation methods, analysis and interpretation, or clinical practice applications. After the systematic search, three researchers individually reviewed the collected data, and the reviewed articles and books were scrutinized using the same criteria.
RESULTS: We collected the PRO guidance published in articles and books between 2009 and 2023. From the database searches, 1,455 articles and 387 books were identified, of which one book and 33 articles were finally selected. The collected PRO guidance was categorized into the adoption of PRO measures, design and reporting of trials or studies using PROs, implementation of PRO evaluation in clinical trials or studies or clinical practice, analysis and interpretation of PROs, and application of PRO evaluation. Based on this categorization, we suggest the following for novices: When selecting guidance, novices should clarify the "place" and "purpose" where the guidance will be used. Additionally, they should know that the terminology related to PRO and the scope and expectations of PROs vary by "places" and "purposes".
CONCLUSIONS: From this scoping review of existing PRO guidance, we provided summaries and caveats to assist novices in selecting guidance that fits their purpose and understanding it.