Routine use of patient-reported experience and outcome measures for children and young people: a scoping review.

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Anne Alarilla, Katharine Terrell, Paula Kelly, Heather Chesters, Faith Gibson, Geralyn Oldham, Debbie Sell, Gwyneth Davies, Jo Wray
{"title":"Routine use of patient-reported experience and outcome measures for children and young people: a scoping review.","authors":"Anne Alarilla, Katharine Terrell, Paula Kelly, Heather Chesters, Faith Gibson, Geralyn Oldham, Debbie Sell, Gwyneth Davies, Jo Wray","doi":"10.1186/s13643-024-02706-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) measure people's views of their health status whereas patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are questionnaires measuring perceptions of their experience whilst receiving healthcare. PROMs/PREMs have the potential to enable children and young people (CYP) to be involved in decisions about their care and improve the quality of their care but it is not clear how often PROMs/PREMs are incorporated as part of standard care of CYP in the hospital setting. The aims of this scoping review were to understand the extent of the literature and map available evidence on the use, benefits, barriers and facilitators of PROMs/PREMs as part of standard care and treatment of CYP in hospitals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Joanna Briggs Institute review process was used to map existing evidence on the use of PROMs/PREMs in routine care of CYP in different hospital settings worldwide. Key search terms were developed and Ovid (Emcare, Embase MEDLINE, APA PsychInfo), Scopus and Web of Science were searched. Data were analysed using frequency counts and basic content analysis for thematic mapping according to the research questions. We undertook an initial search in February 2021 and updated this in April 2023.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search yielded 68,004 studies, 388 were eligible for full text review and 172 met the inclusion criteria. PROMs were more commonly used than PREMs in routine care of CYP in hospitals; these were mostly collected using electronic collection and concentrated in specific specialities, settings, contexts and countries. The findings mapped the use of PROMs/PREMs, including how data are applied in clinical practice and used for service development, but this was not consistently reported. There are specific challenges in the implementation of PROMs/PREMs in routine care of CYP that need to be considered.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PROMs/PREMs have the potential to improve care for CYP in hospital settings contributing to different aspects of care. A better understanding of their use, how results can be applied in clinical practice and contribute to service development will enable meaningful employment. The popularity of electronically collected and captured PROMS/PREMs warrants further investigation to enable their meaningful use in routine care of CYP.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>Not pre-registered.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"13 1","pages":"293"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11603634/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02706-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) measure people's views of their health status whereas patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are questionnaires measuring perceptions of their experience whilst receiving healthcare. PROMs/PREMs have the potential to enable children and young people (CYP) to be involved in decisions about their care and improve the quality of their care but it is not clear how often PROMs/PREMs are incorporated as part of standard care of CYP in the hospital setting. The aims of this scoping review were to understand the extent of the literature and map available evidence on the use, benefits, barriers and facilitators of PROMs/PREMs as part of standard care and treatment of CYP in hospitals.

Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute review process was used to map existing evidence on the use of PROMs/PREMs in routine care of CYP in different hospital settings worldwide. Key search terms were developed and Ovid (Emcare, Embase MEDLINE, APA PsychInfo), Scopus and Web of Science were searched. Data were analysed using frequency counts and basic content analysis for thematic mapping according to the research questions. We undertook an initial search in February 2021 and updated this in April 2023.

Results: The search yielded 68,004 studies, 388 were eligible for full text review and 172 met the inclusion criteria. PROMs were more commonly used than PREMs in routine care of CYP in hospitals; these were mostly collected using electronic collection and concentrated in specific specialities, settings, contexts and countries. The findings mapped the use of PROMs/PREMs, including how data are applied in clinical practice and used for service development, but this was not consistently reported. There are specific challenges in the implementation of PROMs/PREMs in routine care of CYP that need to be considered.

Conclusion: PROMs/PREMs have the potential to improve care for CYP in hospital settings contributing to different aspects of care. A better understanding of their use, how results can be applied in clinical practice and contribute to service development will enable meaningful employment. The popularity of electronically collected and captured PROMS/PREMs warrants further investigation to enable their meaningful use in routine care of CYP.

Systematic review registration: Not pre-registered.

儿童和青少年患者报告的经验和结果测量的常规使用:范围审查。
背景:患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)衡量人们对其健康状况的看法,而患者报告的体验测量(PREMs)是测量他们在接受医疗保健时体验的看法的问卷。prom /PREMs有可能使儿童和青少年(CYP)参与有关其护理的决策并提高其护理质量,但尚不清楚在医院环境中,prom /PREMs作为CYP标准护理的一部分的频率有多高。这项范围审查的目的是了解文献的范围,并绘制关于PROMs/PREMs作为医院CYP标准护理和治疗的一部分的使用、益处、障碍和促进因素的现有证据。方法:乔安娜布里格斯研究所的审查过程是用来绘制现有的证据,在全球不同的医院设置的CYP常规护理中使用PROMs/PREMs。开发关键搜索词,检索Ovid (Emcare, Embase MEDLINE, APA PsychInfo), Scopus和Web of Science。根据研究问题,采用频率计数法和专题制图基本内容分析法对数据进行分析。我们于2021年2月进行了初步搜索,并于2023年4月进行了更新。结果:检索得到68004篇研究,388篇符合全文综述,172篇符合纳入标准。在医院CYP的常规护理中,PROMs比PREMs更常用;这些信息大多是通过电子收集收集的,集中在特定的专业、环境、环境和国家。研究结果描绘了PROMs/PREMs的使用情况,包括如何将数据应用于临床实践和用于服务开发,但这方面的报道并不一致。在CYP的日常护理中实施PROMs/PREMs有一些具体的挑战需要考虑。结论:PROMs/PREMs有潜力改善医院环境中对CYP的护理,有助于不同方面的护理。更好地了解它们的用途,如何将结果应用于临床实践并促进服务发展,将使就业变得有意义。电子采集和捕获的PROMS/PREMs的普及值得进一步调查,以使其在CYP的日常护理中有意义的使用。系统评审注册:未预注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信