评估糖尿病患者报告体验措施的工具:范围综述。

IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Soe Sandi Tint, Myo Zin Oo, Nida Buawangpong, Wichuda Jiraporncharoen, Nutchar Wiwatkunupakarn, Kittipan Rerkasem, Kanokwan Kulprachakarn, Hataichanok Chuljerm, Timothy E O'Brien, Rohini Mathur, Chaisiri Angkurawaranon
{"title":"评估糖尿病患者报告体验措施的工具:范围综述。","authors":"Soe Sandi Tint, Myo Zin Oo, Nida Buawangpong, Wichuda Jiraporncharoen, Nutchar Wiwatkunupakarn, Kittipan Rerkasem, Kanokwan Kulprachakarn, Hataichanok Chuljerm, Timothy E O'Brien, Rohini Mathur, Chaisiri Angkurawaranon","doi":"10.1186/s41687-025-00848-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Diabetes Mellitus (DM) management is increasingly focusing on patient-centered care, making patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) critical for understanding the subjective aspects of diabetes treatment and self-management. These measures differ based on cultural contexts and individual perspectives, leading different countries to the development of country-specific tools to assess care quality from the patient's viewpoint. This review aimed to identify available instruments for assessing patient-reported experiences in individuals with diabetes and examine the different domains, items, and the validity and reliability of these instruments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, databases including PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched for English-language articles without year limitations. This scoping review focused on PREMs that evaluate the quality of diabetes care among adolescent and adult patients with type 1 and type 2 DM. Studies that used patient expectation questionnaires, involved individuals not receiving care, or focused on patient-reported outcomes rather than experiences were excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight articles from six countries representing different healthcare settings were included, mostly from developed countries. A variety of methodologies were used to develop these PREM instruments, with unique domains and items. Content analysis revealed five commonly measured domains: (1) care planning, (2) patient education, (3) professionalism, (4) quality of care, and (5) hospital care and transition, reflecting diverse patient experiences across healthcare services.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This scoping review identifies a limited number of tools for evaluating PREMs in diabetes care, highlighting variability in their development and domain coverage. Five core domains are proposed across different settings, with an emphasis on culturally adapted measures to enhance the accuracy of patient experience capture in diverse populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"9 1","pages":"16"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11807032/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Instruments for assessing patient-reported experience measures among patients with diabetes mellitus: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Soe Sandi Tint, Myo Zin Oo, Nida Buawangpong, Wichuda Jiraporncharoen, Nutchar Wiwatkunupakarn, Kittipan Rerkasem, Kanokwan Kulprachakarn, Hataichanok Chuljerm, Timothy E O'Brien, Rohini Mathur, Chaisiri Angkurawaranon\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41687-025-00848-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Diabetes Mellitus (DM) management is increasingly focusing on patient-centered care, making patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) critical for understanding the subjective aspects of diabetes treatment and self-management. These measures differ based on cultural contexts and individual perspectives, leading different countries to the development of country-specific tools to assess care quality from the patient's viewpoint. This review aimed to identify available instruments for assessing patient-reported experiences in individuals with diabetes and examine the different domains, items, and the validity and reliability of these instruments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, databases including PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched for English-language articles without year limitations. This scoping review focused on PREMs that evaluate the quality of diabetes care among adolescent and adult patients with type 1 and type 2 DM. Studies that used patient expectation questionnaires, involved individuals not receiving care, or focused on patient-reported outcomes rather than experiences were excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight articles from six countries representing different healthcare settings were included, mostly from developed countries. A variety of methodologies were used to develop these PREM instruments, with unique domains and items. Content analysis revealed five commonly measured domains: (1) care planning, (2) patient education, (3) professionalism, (4) quality of care, and (5) hospital care and transition, reflecting diverse patient experiences across healthcare services.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This scoping review identifies a limited number of tools for evaluating PREMs in diabetes care, highlighting variability in their development and domain coverage. Five core domains are proposed across different settings, with an emphasis on culturally adapted measures to enhance the accuracy of patient experience capture in diverse populations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36660,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"16\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11807032/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-025-00848-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-025-00848-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:糖尿病(DM)管理越来越注重以患者为中心的护理,使患者报告体验措施(PREMs)对了解糖尿病治疗和自我管理的主观方面至关重要。这些措施因文化背景和个人观点而异,导致不同国家开发针对本国的工具,从患者的角度评估护理质量。本综述旨在确定评估糖尿病患者报告经历的可用工具,并检查这些工具的不同领域、项目以及有效性和可靠性。方法:按照PRISMA-ScR指南,检索PubMed、Embase、CINAHL、Cochrane和Scopus等数据库,检索无年份限制的英文文章。本综述的范围主要集中在评估1型和2型糖尿病青少年和成人患者糖尿病护理质量的prem。排除了使用患者期望问卷、涉及未接受治疗的个体或关注患者报告的结果而不是经历的研究。结果:纳入了来自6个国家的8篇代表不同医疗保健环境的文章,其中大部分来自发达国家。各种方法被用于开发这些PREM工具,具有独特的领域和项目。内容分析揭示了五个常用测量领域:(1)护理计划,(2)患者教育,(3)专业精神,(4)护理质量,以及(5)医院护理和过渡,反映了不同医疗保健服务的不同患者体验。结论:该范围综述确定了有限数量的评估糖尿病护理中PREMs的工具,突出了其发展和领域覆盖的可变性。在不同的环境中提出了五个核心领域,重点是适应文化的措施,以提高不同人群中患者经验捕获的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Instruments for assessing patient-reported experience measures among patients with diabetes mellitus: a scoping review.

Purpose: Diabetes Mellitus (DM) management is increasingly focusing on patient-centered care, making patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) critical for understanding the subjective aspects of diabetes treatment and self-management. These measures differ based on cultural contexts and individual perspectives, leading different countries to the development of country-specific tools to assess care quality from the patient's viewpoint. This review aimed to identify available instruments for assessing patient-reported experiences in individuals with diabetes and examine the different domains, items, and the validity and reliability of these instruments.

Methods: Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, databases including PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched for English-language articles without year limitations. This scoping review focused on PREMs that evaluate the quality of diabetes care among adolescent and adult patients with type 1 and type 2 DM. Studies that used patient expectation questionnaires, involved individuals not receiving care, or focused on patient-reported outcomes rather than experiences were excluded.

Results: Eight articles from six countries representing different healthcare settings were included, mostly from developed countries. A variety of methodologies were used to develop these PREM instruments, with unique domains and items. Content analysis revealed five commonly measured domains: (1) care planning, (2) patient education, (3) professionalism, (4) quality of care, and (5) hospital care and transition, reflecting diverse patient experiences across healthcare services.

Conclusions: This scoping review identifies a limited number of tools for evaluating PREMs in diabetes care, highlighting variability in their development and domain coverage. Five core domains are proposed across different settings, with an emphasis on culturally adapted measures to enhance the accuracy of patient experience capture in diverse populations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
120
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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