Why Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Have Not Reached Primary Eye Care: A Critical Narrative Review of the Targeting, Access, and Action Gaps
4 affiliations
- 1University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, NW1 2BU, UK
- 2Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London W2 1NY, UK
- 3Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK
- 4Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Foundation Trust, Plymouth PL6 8DH, UK
Abstract
Eye care is shifting into community and primary care settings, yet patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have not followed. Non-adoption is routinely attributed to clinician time, information technology, and absent guidance, explanations that are real but have not changed practice. This critical narrative review synthesises evidence across ophthalmic PROM psychometrics, implementation science, community eye care service evaluations, and primary eye care epidemiology, with every primary source verified against its PubMed record. We propose, as hypotheses requiring validation rather than as established findings, four structural gaps: instruments calibrated in hospital and surgical cohorts may mistarget milder community populations; in the only published implementation reporting uptake, patients with lower visual acuity were less likely to attempt a self-administered vision PROM, suggesting that non-completion may be informative rather than random; we identified no primary eye care study in which scores were returned to the consultation, the step at which benefit has been demonstrated in other specialties; and the high-volume community case mix remains largely unmeasured. Beneath these, we propose a fifth, cross-cutting funding gap, since we identified no routine reimbursement route for this activity, although the service and financing evidence available to us is predominantly from the United Kingdom. We set out a staged implementation route, the observations that would confirm or refute each proposed gap, and the strongest counter-argument to our own position, namely that non-adoption may be rational where instruments carry little decision-relevant information in mild disease.
Related
- Reference Standards in Artificial Intelligence Detection of Apical Periodontitis: A Narrative Review of What Reported Accuracy Measures
- Improving engagement with preconsult patient-reported outcome measures: A mixed-methods pilot study
- Associations of patient-reported outcome measures with impaired mobility and elevated C reactive protein in axial spondyloarthritis: a cross-sectional study.
- Cross-cultural adaptation and comparative psychometric evaluation of four patient-reported outcome measures for breast cancer-related lymphedema: measurement properties and clinical discrimination
- Combining natural language processing with patient-reported outcome measures scores to investigate the association of pandemic regulations with anxiety in children
BibTeX
@article{rahmatova2026patientreported,
title = {{Why Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Have Not Reached Primary Eye Care: A Critical Narrative Review of the Targeting, Access, and Action Gaps}},
author = {Jamolbi Rahmatova and Viraj Shah and Shahnia Surendran and Arian Arjomandi Rad and Robert Vardanyan},
journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/jcm15218461},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/21/8461},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Why Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Have Not Reached Primary Eye Care: A Critical Narrative Review of the Targeting, Access, and Action Gaps
AU - Jamolbi Rahmatova
AU - Viraj Shah
AU - Shahnia Surendran
AU - Arian Arjomandi Rad
AU - Robert Vardanyan
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/30
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
DO - 10.3390/jcm15218461
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/21/8461
AB - Eye care is shifting into community and primary care settings, yet patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have not followed. Non-adoption is routinely attributed to clinician time, information technology, and absent guidance, explanations that are real but have not changed practice. This critical narrative review synthesises evidence across ophthalmic PROM psychometrics, implementation science, community eye care service evaluations, and primary eye care epidemiology, with every primary source verified against its PubMed record. We propose, as hypotheses requiring validation rather than as established findings, four structural gaps: instruments calibrated in hospital and surgical cohorts may mistarget milder community populations; in the only published implementation reporting uptake, patients with lower visual acuity were less likely to attempt a self-administered vision PROM, suggesting that non-completion may be informative rather than random; we identified no primary eye care study in which scores were returned to the consultation, the step at which benefit has been demonstrated in other specialties; and the high-volume community case mix remains largely unmeasured. Beneath these, we propose a fifth, cross-cutting funding gap, since we identified no routine reimbursement route for this activity, although the service and financing evidence available to us is predominantly from the United Kingdom. We set out a staged implementation route, the observations that would confirm or refute each proposed gap, and the strongest counter-argument to our own position, namely that non-adoption may be rational where instruments carry little decision-relevant information in mild disease.
SN - 2077-0383
ER -