The objective of this scoping review was to review survey instruments for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and provide recommendations to construct a tool for PROMs specifically for breast cancer patients who have undergone surgery, to overcome the limitations of existing validated tools. A total of 924 articles were screened. Nine articles were selected based on the eligibility criteria. We found that PROMs\' data collection along with advancements in the treatment of breast cancer and the resultant improved clinical outcomes, there is a growing appreciation and focus on improving patients\' quality of life (QoL). Previous studies have shown that the assessment of PROMs is linked to a positive effect on patients\' symptoms of distress, quality of life, acceptance, and satisfaction. Several PROMs tools have been validated for use in cancer survivors. However, it is unclear whether existing tools are appropriate for use in breast cancer patients who have undergone surgical treatment. Hence, we conducted a scoping review. Following a review of the current PROM related to breast cancer and the necessity to build specialized PROMs related to the outcomes of breast cancer surgery, we provide recommendations for the development of a comprehensive tool to overcome the limitations of existing PROMs tools.

Little is known about the impact of peer support programmes on physical health populations or on the methods used to evaluate such programmes. The present study undertakes a scoping review of research related to peer support programmes or interventions in physical health populations, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The search was carried out across the Medline, PsycINFO, and Cochrane databases and focused on papers that evaluated peer support intervention(s) in adults with physical health conditions. The search identified an initial 7,903 records, which were narrowed down to 21 records that met the inclusion criteria; their findings were narratively synthesized. The scoping review found considerable heterogeneity among eligible records in terms of their study design, outcome measurements and findings reported. Qualitative methods of evaluation generated more consistent findings compared to objective outcome measures and suggested that peer support was beneficial for patients\' health and wellbeing by reducing feelings of isolation and creating a sense of community as well as providing an opportunity for information consolidation. The scoping review highlights the inconsistencies in methods used to evaluate peer support interventions and programmes in healthcare settings among different physical health populations. It also draws attention to the lack of peer support research in particular areas, including in acute physical health populations such as in major trauma. The scoping review emphasizes the need for future studies to address this gap in peer support research.

Efficiently addressing patient priorities and concerns remains a challenge in oncology. Systematic operationalization of patient-centered care (PCC) can support improved assessment and practice of PCC in this unique care setting. This review aimed to synthesize the qualitative empirical literature exploring the National Academy of Medicine (NAM)\'s PCC constructs of values, needs, and preferences among patients\' during their cancer treatment experiences.
A systematic review of qualitative studies published between 2002 and 2018 addressing adult patient values, needs, and preferences during cancer treatment was conducted. Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS databases were searched on September 10, 2018. Methodological rigor was assessed using a modified version of the Evaluation Tool for Qualitative Studies. Included study findings were analyzed using line-by-line coding; and the emergent themes were compared to the National Academy of Medicine (NAM)\'s PCC dimensions.
Twenty-nine primary studies were included in the synthesis. Descriptive themes for values (autonomy, being involved, family, hope, normality, and sincerity), needs (care coordination, information, privacy, support of physical well-being, emotional support (family/friends, peer, provider), and self-support), and preferences (care coordination, decision-making, information delivery, source of social support, and treatment) were identified. \"Cancer care context\" emerged as an important domain in which these constructs are operationalized. This thematic framework outlines PCC attributes that oncology care stakeholders can evaluate to improve patient experiences.
These findings build on previous PCC research and may contribute to the systematic assessment of patient priorities and the improvement of oncology care quality from the patient perspective.

Patient-centeredness is a characteristic of high-quality medical care and requires engaging community members in health systems\' decision-making. One key patient engagement strategy is patient, family, and community advisory boards/councils (PFACs), yet the evidence to guide PFACs is lacking. Systematic reviews on patient engagement may benefit from patient input, but feasibility is unclear.
A team of physicians, researchers, and a PFAC member conducted a systematic review to examine the impact of PFACs on health systems and describe optimal strategies for PFAC conduct. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and Social Science Citation Index from inception through September 2016, as well as pre-identified websites. Two reviewers independently screened and abstracted data from studies, then assessed randomized studies for risk of bias and observational studies for quality using standardized measures. We performed a realist synthesis-which asks what works, for whom, under what circumstances-of abstracted data via 12 monthly meetings between investigators and two feedback sessions with a hospital-based PFAC.
Eighteen articles describing 16 studies met study criteria. Randomized studies demonstrated moderate to high risk of bias and observational studies demonstrated poor to fair quality. Studies engaged patients at multiple levels of the health care system and suggested that in-person deliberation with health system leadership was most effective. Studies involving patient engagement in research focused on increasing study participation. PFAC recruitment was by nomination (n = 11) or not described (n = 5). No common measure of patient, family, or community engagement was identified. Realist synthesis was enriched by feedback from PFAC members.
PFACs engage communities through individual projects but evidence of their impact on outcomes is lacking. A paucity of randomized controlled trials or high-quality observational studies guide strategies for engagement through PFACs. Standardized measurement tools for engagement are needed. Strategies for PFAC recruitment should be investigated and reported. PFAC members can feasibly contribute to systematic reviews.
A protocol for record eligibility was developed a priori and was registered in the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (registration number CRD42016052817). The Department of Veterans Affairs\' Office of Academic Affiliations, through the National Clinician Scholars Program, funded this study.

New persistent opioid use is a common postoperative complication, with 6% of previously opioid-naïve patients continuing to fill opioid prescriptions 3-6 months after surgery. Despite these risks, it is unknown which specialties prescribe opioids to these vulnerable patients.
To identify specialties prescribing opioids to surgical patients who develop new persistent opioid use.
Using a national dataset of insurance claims, we identified opioid-naïve patients aged 18-64 years undergoing surgical procedures (2008-2014) who continued filling opioid prescriptions 3 to 6 months after surgery. We then examined opioid prescriptions claims during the 12 months after surgery, and identified prescribing physician specialty using National Provider Identifier codes.
Percentage of opioid prescriptions provided by each specialty evaluated at 90-day intervals during the 12 months after surgery.
We identified 5276 opioid-naïve patients who developed new persistent opioid use. During the first 3 months after surgery, surgeons accounted for 69% of opioid prescriptions, primary care physicians accounted for 13%, Emergency Medicine accounted for 2%, Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (PM&R)/Pain Medicine accounted for 1%, and all other specialties accounted for 15%. In contrast, 9 to 12 months after surgery, surgeons accounted for only 11% of opioid prescriptions, primary care physicians accounted for 53%, Emergency Medicine accounted for 5%, PM&R/Pain Medicine accounted for 6%, and all other specialties provided 25%.
Among surgical patients who developed new persistent opioid use, surgeons provide the majority of opioid prescriptions during the first 3 months after surgery. By 9 to 12 months after surgery, however, the majority of opioid prescriptions were provided by primary care physicians. Enhanced care coordination between surgeons and primary care physicians could allow earlier identification of patients at risk for new persistent opioid use to prevent misuse and dependence.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the most commonly used patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in clinical vestibular research, and to assess their test characteristics and applicability to the study of age-related vestibular loss in clinical trials.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO databases from 1950 to August 13, 2013.
METHODS: PRO measures were defined as outcomes that capture the subjective experience of the patient (eg, symptoms, functional status, health perceptions, quality of life). Two independent reviewers selected studies that used PRO measures in clinical vestibular research. Disparities were resolved with consensus between the reviewers. Of 2260 articles initially found in the literature search, 255 full-text articles were retrieved for assessment. Of these, 104 met inclusion criteria for data collection.
METHODS: PRO measures were identified by 2 independent reviewers. The 4 most commonly used PROs were evaluated for their applicability to the condition of age-related vestibular loss. Specifically, for these 4 PROs, data were collected pertaining to instrument test-retest reliability, item domains, and target population of the instrument.
RESULTS: A total of 50 PRO instruments were identified. The 4 most frequently used PROs were the Dizziness Handicap Inventory, Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale, Vertigo Symptom Scale-short form, and visual analog scale. Of these 4 PROs, 3 were validated for use in patients with vestibular disease and 1 was validated in community-dwelling older individuals with balance impairments. Items across the 4 PROs were categorized into 3 domains based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: activity, participation, and body functions and structures.
CONCLUSIONS: None of the most commonly used PRO instruments were validated for use in community-dwelling older adults with age-related vestibular loss. Nevertheless, the 3 common domains of items identified across these 4 PRO instruments may be generalizable to older adults and provide a basis for developing a PRO instrument designed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions targeted toward age-related vestibular loss.

The pathology report is a critical document that helps guide the management of patients with cancer. More and more patients read their reports, intending to participate in decisions about their care. However, a substantial subset of patients may lack the ability to comprehend this often technical and complex document. We hypothesized that most literature on pathology reports discusses reports from the perspective of other physicians and not from the perspective of patients. An expert panel of physicians developed a list of search criteria, which we used to identify articles on PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Reviews, and Google Scholar databases. Two reviewers independently evaluated all articles to identify for detailed review those that met search criteria. We identified the primary audience of the selected articles and the degree to which these articles addressed clarity of communication of pathology reports with patients. Of 801 articles identified in our search, 25 involved the formatting of pathology reports for clarity of communication. Recurrent themes in proposed improvements in reports included content standardization, variation in terminology, clarity of communication, and quality improvement. No articles discussed patients as their target audience. No study evaluated the health literacy level required of patients to comprehend pathology reports. In summary, there is a scarcity of patient-centered approaches to improve pathology reports. The literature on pathology reports does not include patients as a target audience. Limited resources are available to help patients comprehend their reports. Efforts to improve patient-centered communication are desirable to address this overlooked aspect of patient care.

OBJECTIVE: To recommend methodological standards in the prevention and handling of missing data for primary patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR).
METHODS: We searched National Library of Medicine Bookshelf and Catalog as well as regulatory agencies\' and organizations\' Web sites in January 2012 for guidance documents that had formal recommendations regarding missing data. We extracted the characteristics of included guidance documents and recommendations. Using a two-round modified Delphi survey, a multidisciplinary panel proposed mandatory standards on the prevention and handling of missing data for PCOR.
RESULTS: We identified 1,790 records and assessed 30 as having relevant recommendations. We proposed 10 standards as mandatory, covering three domains. First, the single best approach is to prospectively prevent missing data occurrence. Second, use of valid statistical methods that properly reflect multiple sources of uncertainty is critical when analyzing missing data. Third, transparent and thorough reporting of missing data allows readers to judge the validity of the findings.
CONCLUSIONS: We urge researchers to adopt rigorous methodology and promote good science by applying best practices to the prevention and handling of missing data. Developing guidance on the prevention and handling of missing data for observational studies and studies that use existing records is a priority for future research.