Evaluating the implementation of PROMs and PREMs in routine clinical care: co-design of tools from the perspective of patients and healthcare professionals.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Clara Amat-Fernandez, Yolanda Pardo, Montse Ferrer, Guillermo Bosch, Catalina Lizano-Barrantes, Renata Briseño-Diaz, Maria Vernet-Tomas, Lluís Fumadó, Marc Beisani, Dolores Redondo-Pachón, Anna Bach-Pascual, Olatz Garin
{"title":"Evaluating the implementation of PROMs and PREMs in routine clinical care: co-design of tools from the perspective of patients and healthcare professionals.","authors":"Clara Amat-Fernandez, Yolanda Pardo, Montse Ferrer, Guillermo Bosch, Catalina Lizano-Barrantes, Renata Briseño-Diaz, Maria Vernet-Tomas, Lluís Fumadó, Marc Beisani, Dolores Redondo-Pachón, Anna Bach-Pascual, Olatz Garin","doi":"10.1186/s12955-025-02333-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Implementation of patient-reported measures (PRMs) is an integral element for patient-centered models; however, there is still hardly any quantitative evidence regarding its impact in routine care settings. The objective of this study was to codesign two concise tools that allow for a standardized and longitudinal assessment of the implementation of PRMs in routine care in terms of acceptability and perceived value from the perspective of both patients and healthcare professionals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A list of constructs and items to be presented, separately, to patients and healthcare professionals was created from evidence gathered through a narrative literature review. Focus groups, composed of either patients or healthcare professionals from different chronic conditions, were conducted for the co-design of independent assessments. Once agreement was reached, the content validity was examined in separate consensus meetings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 10 patients and 10 healthcare professionals participated in the focus groups. After 7 focus groups, the PRMs Implementation Assessment Tool for patients (PRMIAT-P) was developed with 33 items in 9 constructs, and the tool for healthcare professionals (PRMIAT-HP) had 33 items in 16 constructs. Content validity was confirmed for both tools.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The perspective of patients and healthcare professionals regarding the implementation of PRMs in routine care can be evaluated quantitively with the PRMIAT tools. These tools are understandable, concise and comprehensive, and can be used in multiple settings and for different chronic conditions. They have been codesigned as a standard set to facilitate both longitudinal assessments and performing benchmarking among different initiatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":12980,"journal":{"name":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes","volume":"23 1","pages":"15"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11834580/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-025-02333-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Implementation of patient-reported measures (PRMs) is an integral element for patient-centered models; however, there is still hardly any quantitative evidence regarding its impact in routine care settings. The objective of this study was to codesign two concise tools that allow for a standardized and longitudinal assessment of the implementation of PRMs in routine care in terms of acceptability and perceived value from the perspective of both patients and healthcare professionals.

Methods: A list of constructs and items to be presented, separately, to patients and healthcare professionals was created from evidence gathered through a narrative literature review. Focus groups, composed of either patients or healthcare professionals from different chronic conditions, were conducted for the co-design of independent assessments. Once agreement was reached, the content validity was examined in separate consensus meetings.

Results: A total of 10 patients and 10 healthcare professionals participated in the focus groups. After 7 focus groups, the PRMs Implementation Assessment Tool for patients (PRMIAT-P) was developed with 33 items in 9 constructs, and the tool for healthcare professionals (PRMIAT-HP) had 33 items in 16 constructs. Content validity was confirmed for both tools.

Conclusions: The perspective of patients and healthcare professionals regarding the implementation of PRMs in routine care can be evaluated quantitively with the PRMIAT tools. These tools are understandable, concise and comprehensive, and can be used in multiple settings and for different chronic conditions. They have been codesigned as a standard set to facilitate both longitudinal assessments and performing benchmarking among different initiatives.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
2.80%
发文量
154
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes is an open access, peer-reviewed, journal offering high quality articles, rapid publication and wide diffusion in the public domain. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes considers original manuscripts on the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) assessment for evaluation of medical and psychosocial interventions. It also considers approaches and studies on psychometric properties of HRQOL and patient reported outcome measures, including cultural validation of instruments if they provide information about the impact of interventions. The journal publishes study protocols and reviews summarising the present state of knowledge concerning a particular aspect of HRQOL and patient reported outcome measures. Reviews should generally follow systematic review methodology. Comments on articles and letters to the editor are welcome.
×
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