Title |
Development of a core set of outcome measures for OAB treatment
|
---|---|
Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, September 2017
|
DOI | 10.1007/s00192-017-3481-6 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Caroline Foust-Wright, Stephanie Wissig, Caleb Stowell, Elizabeth Olson, Anita Anderson, Jennifer Anger, Linda Cardozo, Nikki Cotterill, Elizabeth Ann Gormley, Philip Toozs-Hobson, John Heesakkers, Peter Herbison, Kate Moore, Jessica McKinney, Abraham Morse, Samantha Pulliam, George Szonyi, Adrian Wagg, Ian Milsom |
Abstract |
Standardized measures enable the comparison of outcomes across providers and treatments giving valuable information for improving care quality and efficacy. The aim of this project was to define a minimum standard set of outcome measures and case-mix factors for evaluating the care of patients with overactive bladder (OAB). The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) convened an international working group (WG) of leading clinicians and patients to engage in a structured method for developing a core outcome set. Consensus was determined by a modified Delphi process, and discussions were supported by both literature review and patient input. The standard set measures outcomes of care for adults seeking treatment for OAB, excluding residents of long-term care facilities. The WG focused on treatment outcomes identified as most important key outcome domains to patients: symptom burden and bother, physical functioning, emotional health, impact of symptoms and treatment on quality of life, and success of treatment. Demographic information and case-mix factors that may affect these outcomes were also included. The standardized outcome set for evaluating clinical care is appropriate for use by all health providers caring for patients with OAB, regardless of specialty or geographic location, and provides key data for quality improvement activities and research. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 71 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 12 | 17% |
Researcher | 10 | 14% |
Other | 7 | 10% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
Professor | 5 | 7% |
Other | 17 | 24% |
Unknown | 14 | 20% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 32% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 10% |
Social Sciences | 4 | 6% |
Psychology | 3 | 4% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
Other | 12 | 17% |
Unknown | 20 | 28% |