Proceedings of Patient Reported Outcome Measure’s (PROMs) Conference Sheffield 2016: advances in patient reported outcomes research

Abstract

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2016, 14(Suppl 1):S1 Health, health-related and health-care evaluation research can con-sider technologies that are adaptive in some way: this conference fo-cuses interest on Patient Reported Outcome Measures but arguably its remit could be widened. Why? Statistical methodology, health economics and health psychometrics are seen to converge in use of models and understanding of multiple item, multi-construct or multi-dimensional questionnaire (or test) data on occasion. Fieldwork in health and related research using legacy instruments (tests and scales) is a massive undertaking and social survey, cohort and large scale longitudinal research in biomedicine have progressed towards platform scale. Innovation using computer-based or comput-erized adaptive tests is relatively new in the UK in some sectors and for some scientific communities, but this scientific meeting will pro-vide valuable updates and visibility to ongoing work. Extensions to existing evaluation data are easily motivated and you are welcomed to join this initiative and conversation with evaluation models, new domains of application for simple developments as well as more complex and challenging applications. Healthcare technology cooperatives and health data analytics net-works are logical places to progress relevant work and collaborations but – if warranted – sustainable development of evaluation at scale requires platforms accessible but not necessarily linked between cog-nitive and non-cognitive outcomes, health and social care, PROMS and epidemiological measures. In my opinion (dynamically updated!) CAT and variants are in their infancy in NIHR research and CLAHRC collaboration could offer leadership in this area (I can speak to some possible contributions). Research council, charity and industry sector collaboration might be entertained as in other areas of applied science. Strategic investment in coordinated activity supporting feasibility evaluation and develop-ment at scale in the NHS or other organisations relevant to health or related research is needed to accelerate and extend existing pro-grammatic activity, though incremental progress is being made by pioneers and early adopters (though the field is decades old). Op-tions for one country, organisation, setting or collaborator might not all be the same, but sharing of potentials and early evaluation results is encouraged since this might allow new partners to engage and progress. Interest from professional groups (whether clinical area, education sector (medical, dentistry, nursing and allied health profes-sional groups) is increasing and may promote participation in platform style developments in coming years. Relationships with internationally visible initiatives and platform developments remain as opportunities. S2 Well-being: what is it, how does it compare to health and what are the implications of using it to inform health policy John Brazier University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2016, 14(Suppl 1):S2 There has been a growing interest in using measures of subjective well-being to inform decision making within Government departments (such as health) and between them (such as between health and social care) (e.g. Legatum report). It has been suggested that measures of subjective well-being like life satisfaction and happiness would provide a broader measure of benefit than health, and furthermore they would enhance the consistency and comparability between Government departments, and could be used to improve the efficiency and equity in the use of scarce public resources. However, there are concerns about the relevance and suitability of subjective well-being measures in the context of health. This paper examines the different conceptual accounts of well-being and how these compare with the empirical evidence using factor ana-lyses. It then compares different instruments for measuring subjective well-being with each other and with health to better understand their sensitivity to health conditions using four data sets (USoC, HSE, HoDAR, and MIC) both cross-sectionally and longitudinally (USoC only). Finally, it considers how well-being could be incorporated into economic evaluation to evaluate health and social care policies (e.g. through an adapted QALY). It concludes that greater reliance on well-being to measure the benefits of health care would have radical implications for the priorities of the NHS.