To the Editor: We read with interest the article by Agarwal and colleagues1 outlining the recommendations from the Health Services Research Association of Australia and New Zealand for implementing patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) to guide clinical care. The article regrettably fails to acknowledge that most of the commonly used PROMs — largely developed without direct patient participation — may merely provide a patient‐rated version of a measure that nevertheless reflects the clinician’s or researcher’s, not the patient’s, perspective.2,3
The full article is accessible to AMA
members and paid subscribers.
Login to MJA or subscribe now.
- 1. Agarwal A, Pain T, Levesque JF, et al. Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) to guide clinical care: recommendations and challenges. Med J Aust 2022; 216: 9‐11. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2022/216/1/patient‐reported‐outcome‐measures‐proms‐guide‐clinical‐care‐recommendations‐and
- 2. Trujols J, Portella MJ, Iraurgi I, et al. Patient‐reported outcome measures: are they patient‐generated, patient‐centred or patient‐valued? J Ment Health 2013; 22: 555‐562.
- 3. Roe D, Slade M, Jones N. The utility of patient‐reported outcome measures in mental health. World Psychiatry 2022; 21: 56‐57.
- 4. Wiering B, de Boer D, Delnoij D. Patient involvement in the development of patient‐reported outcome measures: a scoping review. Health Expect 2017; 20: 11‐23.
- 5. Carlton J, Peasgood T, Khan S, et al. An emerging framework for fully incorporating public involvement (PI) into patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs). J Patient Rep Outcomes 2020; 4: 4.
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.


No relevant disclosures.