Abstract Aim The aim of this review was to synthesise qualitative research evidence on factors influencing the implementation of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in surgical population. Methods The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, Allied and Complementary Medicine, Global Health, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, Health Management Information Consortium, APA PsycInfo, PubMed and Web of Science. Searches were carried out between 21st and 23rd February 2024. “Best fit” framework analysis was selected for evidence synthesis, necessitating two systematic reviews. The “Models review” focused on relevant theory, framework or conceptual model relating to implementation of PROMs. The “Primary research review” focused on studies describing factors affecting the implementation of PROMs. Case reports, editorial, reviews, meta-analysis, protocols, or studies, conducted in non-surgical or paediatric population, were excluded. Results 3,714 studies were identified in the Models review, of which 7 underwent full-text review and 2 were included in the analysis. Two relevant implementation frameworks were identified: the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. TDF was selected as a priori framework for the coding of evidence. Primary research review identified 1,293 studies, of which 50 underwent full-text review and 18 were included in the analysis. Extracted data were coded against TDF, revealing multiple patient-, clinician- and provider-factors affecting the implementation of PROMs, including: beliefs about consequences and capabilities, environmental context and resources, knowledge, skills, social influences, decision processes, emotional and identity factors. Conclusions Successful implementation of PROMs into routine surgical practice requires careful consideration of patient-, clinician- and provider-factors.
Courtney et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: