Patient-reported outcome measures in skin cancer

ORIGINAL ARTICLES, p 1176, 1187 As a long‐time advocate of patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine clinical practice, the publication in this issue of BJD of not just one but two systematic reviews of potential measures for use in skin cancer is most welcome.1 2 While both reviews highlight several of the challenges in selecting a suitable instrument, it is their differences that provide a window into other often overlooked questions. The first is, what is the point or reason for introducing PROMs alongside well‐established clinician‐reported outcomes? Neither review really addresses whether the aim is to enhance the clinical management of individual patients, to provide a means of comparing the outcomes (and by implication, the performance) of different providers (practitioners, hospitals, Trusts), to determine the cost‐utility of treating skin cancer (i.e. comparing this with other clinical areas in which healthcare resources might be spent), or all three. This is important as it will determine the type of PROM that will be needed. Having said that, it is a question that needs to be answered by policy‐makers rather than researchers.