Outcome measures for young people with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: A qualitative exploration of healthcare professionals’ perceptions and practices

Background: Limited knowledge exists on current use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and performance measures for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), as well as health care professionals’ (HCPs) perceived barriers and facilitators towards their use. This study’s objectives were: 1) to explore current practice of HCPs when assessing outcomes for AIS 2) to understand perceived barriers and facilitators of HCPs to use PROMs 3) to understand perceived barriers and facilitators of HCPs to use performance measures. Methods: A qualitative study recruited a purposive sample of HCPs from a tertiary hospital in the United Kingdom. Mean years of experience managing individuals with AIS was 11.8 years; and included surgeons, physiotherapists and nurses, educated at Bachelor, Masters and Doctoral level. Consent to participate and demographic information were collected in advance of the interviews. In-depth, virtual semi-structured interviews were informed by a topic guide based on current evidence. Interviews of approximately 45 minutes were audio and video recorded and transcribed verbatim alongside written field notes. Data were coded and analysed using inductive thematic analysis, involving researchers with topic and methodological expertise and input from a patient representative. Results: Two themes emerged regarding current practice of using PROMs routine practice and personal evaluations. Four themes emerged as barriers to using PROMs for individuals with AIS: priority and support (e.g., HCPs focus on providing care), practical challenges (e.g., inadequate PROMs), patient-related challenges (e.g., patient preferences) and knowledge, education, and perceived value. Two themes emerged as facilitators: quality existing measure (e.g., sufficient psychometric properties), and priority and support (e.g., research department/culture). Themes for barriers to use performance measures were practicality (e.g., need physical space) and perceived value and knowledge (e.g., PROMs are more important), while the one theme for facilitators was practical consideration (e.g., acceptability). Conclusions: Although HCPs perceived the value of using outcome measures, current practice indicates limited use for individuals with AIS. The findings revealed different barriers and facilitators to implement PROMs in practice. Adopting performance measure are limited due to lack of knowledge and perceived value alongside the practicality, while considering practical factors can improve the use of these measures in practice.