[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.211.207.116. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 169
Citations 0
Invited Commentary
October 2016

How Can a Valid Research Agenda for Patient-Reported Outcomes Be Defined Without Patient Input?

Author Affiliations
  • 1Division of Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
  • 2Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
  • 3Department of Health Policy and Management, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
JAMA Surg. 2016;151(10):936-937. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2016.1695

For the patient will know the answer
and you will ask him
ask her1

John Stone, MD

Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) seeks to improve the quality of health care by ensuring that patients’ values and preferences are included in the research process. Methods to incorporate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) along with other clinical metrics are central to effective PCOR strategies.2 Crude markers of success are insufficient: patients likely care about 30-day mortality, but longer-term survival, functional outcome, and quality of life are paramount.3 As experienced researchers funded by the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, we greatly appreciate the timely research agenda developed by Pezold and colleagues.4 We applaud their foresight to convene an inaugural Patient-Reported Outcomes in Surgery Conference. Although their methods were mostly sound, we question the validity of the proposed research agenda because of 1 major oversight.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×