Thesis

151 Barriers to and enablers of the use of the Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam in clinical practice 7 References 1. Carfora L, Foley CM, Hagi-Diakou P, et al. Patients’ experiences and perspectives of patientreported outcome measures in clinical care: A systematic review and qualitative metasynthesis. PLoS One 2022; 17(4): e0267030. 2. Churruca K, Pomare C, Ellis LA, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Health Expect 2021; 24(4): 1015-24. 3. Stover AM, Haverman L, van Oers HA, Greenhalgh J, Potter CM. Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings. Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation 2021; 30(11): 3015-33. 4. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 2011; 6: 42. 5. van Leeuwen LM, Pronk M, Merkus P, Goverts ST, Anema JR, Kramer SE. Barriers to and enablers of the implementation of an ICF-based intake tool in clinical otology and audiology practice-A qualitative pre-implementation study. PLoS One 2018; 13(12): e0208797. 6. Foster A, Croot L, Brazier J, Harris J, O’Cathain A. The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: a systematic review of reviews. Journal of patient-reported outcomes 2018; 2: 46. 7. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci 2015; 10: 53. 8. Bauer MS, Kirchner J. Implementation science: What is it and why should I care? Psychiatry Res 2020; 283: 112376. 9. Ahmed S, Zidarov D, Eilayyan O, Visca R. Prospective application of implementation science theories and frameworks to inform use of PROMs in routine clinical care within an integrated pain network. Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation 2021; 30(11): 3035-47. 10. Bruinewoud EM, Kraak JT, van Leeuwen LM, Kramer SE, Merkus P. The Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam: a generic patient reported outcome measure about the severity and impact of ear complaints. A cross-sectional study on the development of this questionnaire. Clin Otolaryngol 2018; 43(1): 240-8. 11. Kraak JT, van Dam TF, van Leeuwen LM, Kramer SE, Merkus P. The Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam: A generic patient-reported outcome measure about the severity and impact of ear complaints. Validation, reliability and responsiveness. Clin Otolaryngol 2020. 12. Glenwright BG, Simmich J, Cottrell M, et al. Facilitators and barriers to implementing electronic patient-reported outcome and experience measures in a health care setting: a systematic review. Journal of patient-reported outcomes 2023; 7(1): 13. 13. Briggs MS, Rethman KK, Crookes J, et al. Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Outpatient Rehabilitation Settings: A Systematic Review of Facilitators and Barriers Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2020; 101(10): 1796-812. 14. O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med 2014; 89(9): 1245-51. 15. Atkins L, Francis J, Islam R, et al. A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implement Sci 2017; 12(1): 77.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw