A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient-reported experience measures.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bull C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6736915 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient-reported experience measures.
Bull Claudia C Byrnes Joshua J Hettiarachchi Ruvini R Downes Martin M
Health services research 20190619 5
<h4>Objectives</h4>To identify patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), assess their validity and reliability, and assess any bias in the study design of PREM validity and reliability testing.<h4>Data sources/study setting</h4>Articles reporting on PREM development and testing sourced from MEDLINE, CINAHL and Scopus databases up to March 13, 2018.<h4>Study design</h4>Systematic review.<h4>Data collection/extraction methods</h4>Critical appraisal of PREM study design was undertaken using the ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesThere is a growing acceptance of the need for routine implementation of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in health care. Rheumatology patients, as frequent and long-term users of care, stand to benefit from collection of experience-related data. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review to identify and critically appraise the development and psychometric validation of PREMs in rheumatology.MethodsSix databases were searched systematically from inception to 14 December 2020: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Cochrane and Google Scholar. We included articles in English that described the use or development of PREMs, with results of psychometric testing, in an adult outpatient rheumatology context. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021233819). Articles were appraised using the COnsensus Based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) (i) Risk of Bias checklist and (ii) criteria for good measurement properties.ResultsThe search yielded 3809 publications, and six studies met inclusion criteria. All the included studies on PREM development fulfilled COSMIN standards for 'doubtful' or 'inadequate' quality of instrument development. One study fulfilled a 'sufficient' rating for content validity, and the remainder fulfilled 'inconsistent' ratings. During validity testing, studies fulfilled between one and four of the eight COSMIN checklist criteria for good measurement properties.ConclusionMethodological concerns regarding instrument development and validation limit the generalizability of the existing six validated PREMs in use in rheumatology contexts. There is a need for further well-designed studies to validate existing and new PREMs in this area.
| S-EPMC8578687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in clinical quality registries, for people with cutaneous melanoma, to inform a new Australian Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry; and describe opportunities and challenges of routine PROM/PREM collection, especially in primary care.DesignSystematic review.Primary and secondary outcome measuresWhich PROMs and PREMs are used in clinical quality registries for people with cutaneous melanoma, how they are collected, frequency of collection, participant recruitment methods and funding models for each registry.Results1134 studies were identified from MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects databases and TUFTS Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, alongside grey literature, from database inception to 5th February 2020. Following screening, 14 studies were included, identifying four relevant registries: Dutch Melanoma Registry, Adelphi Real-World Disease-Specific Programme (Melanoma), Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship Registry, and Cancer Experience Registry. These used seven PROMs: EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Functional Assessment of Cancer-General (FACT-G) and FACT-Melanoma (FACT-M), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cancer 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), Fatigue Assessment Scale Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Information System-29 and one PREM; EORTC QLQ-Information Module 26. PROMs/PREMs in registries were reported to improve transparency of care; facilitate clinical auditing for quality assessment; enable cost-effectiveness analyses and create large-scale research platforms. Challenges included resource burden for data entry and potential collection bias toward younger, more affluent respondents. Feedback from patients with melanoma highlighted the relevance of PROMs/PREMs in assessing patient outcomes and patient experiences.ConclusionsClinical registries indicate PROMs/PREMs for melanoma care can be incorporated and address important gaps, however cost and collection bias may limit generalisability.Prospero registration numberCRD42018086737.
| S-EPMC7880114 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith the rise of digital health technologies and telemedicine, the need for evidence-based evaluation is growing. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are recommended as an essential part of the evaluation of telemedicine. For the first time, a systematic review has been conducted to investigate the use of PROMs and PREMs in the evaluation studies of telemedicine covering all application types and medical purposes.ObjectiveThis study investigates the following research questions: in which scenarios are PROMs and PREMs collected for evaluation purposes, which PROM and PREM outcome domains have been covered and how often, which outcome measurement instruments have been used and how often, does the selection and quantity of PROMs and PREMs differ between study types and application types, and has the use of PROMs and PREMs changed over time.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search of the MEDLINE and Embase databases and included studies published from inception until April 2, 2020. We included studies evaluating telemedicine with patients as the main users; these studies reported PROMs and PREMs within randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, noncontrolled trials, and feasibility trials in English and German.ResultsOf the identified 2671 studies, 303 (11.34%) were included; of the 303 studies, 67 (22.1%) were feasibility studies, 70 (23.1%) were noncontrolled trials, 20 (6.6%) were controlled trials, and 146 (48.2%) were randomized controlled trials. Health-related quality of life (n=310; mean 1.02, SD 1.05), emotional function (n=244; mean 0.81, SD 1.18), and adherence (n=103; mean 0.34, SD 0.53) were the most frequently assessed outcome domains. Self-developed PROMs were used in 21.4% (65/303) of the studies, and self-developed PREMs were used in 22.3% (68/303). PROMs (n=884) were assessed more frequently than PREMs (n=234). As the evidence level of the studies increased, the number of PROMs also increased (τ=-0.45), and the number of PREMs decreased (τ=0.35). Since 2000, not only has the number of studies using PROMs and PREMs increased, but the level of evidence and the number of outcome measurement instruments used have also increased, with the number of PREMs permanently remaining at a lower level.ConclusionsThere have been increasingly more studies, particularly high-evidence studies, which use PROMs and PREMs to evaluate telemedicine. PROMs have been used more frequently than PREMs. With the increasing maturity stage of telemedicine applications and higher evidence level, the use of PROMs increased in line with the recommendations of evaluation guidelines. Health-related quality of life and emotional function were measured in almost all the studies. Simultaneously, health literacy as a precondition for using the application adequately, alongside proper training and guidance, has rarely been reported. Further efforts should be pursued to standardize PROM and PREM collection in evaluation studies of telemedicine.
| S-EPMC8663685 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Patient-reported Experience Measures (PREMs) are validated questionnaires, that gather patients' and families' views of their experience receiving care and are commonly used to measure the quality of care, with the goal to make care more patient and family-centered. PREMs are increasingly being adopted in pediatric population, however knowledge gaps exist around understanding the use of PREMs in pediatrics. Objective: To identify and synthesize evidence on the use of PREMs in pediatric healthcare settings and their characteristics. Evidence Review: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines governed the conduct and reporting of this review. An exhaustive search strategy was applied to MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases to identify relevant peer-reviewed articles from high-income countries. Additionally, gray literature was searched to capture real-world implementation of PREMs. All the articles were screened independently by two reviewers in two steps. Data was extracted independently, synthesized, and tabulated. Findings from gray literature was synthesized and reported separately. Risk of bias for the studies identified through scientific databases was assessed independently by two reviewers using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Results: The initial search identified 15,457 articles. After removing duplicates, the title and abstracts of 11,543 articles were screened. Seven hundred ten articles were eligible for full-text review. Finally, 83 articles met the criteria and were included in the analyses. Of the 83 includes studies conducted in 14 countries, 48 were conducted in USA, 25 in European countries and 10 in other countries. These 83 studies reported on the use of 39 different PREMs in pediatric healthcare settings. The gray literature retrieved 10 additional PREMs. The number of items in these PREMs ranged from 7 to 89. Twenty-three PREMs were designed to be completed by proxy, 10 by either pediatric patients or family caregivers, and 6 by pediatric patients themselves. Conclusion and Relevance: This comprehensive review is the first to systematically search evidence around the use of PREMs in pediatrics. The findings of this review can guide health administrators and researchers to use appropriate PREMs to implement patient and family-centered care in pediatrics.
| S-EPMC8721567 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this work was to provide evidence of validity and reliability for 4 parent/child-reported outcome measures included in the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology juvenile idiopathic arthritis core domain set: the evaluation of the child's pain and level of disease activity, the assessment of morning stiffness duration, and an active joint count for proxy/self-assessment.MethodsPatients were included in the multinational study Epidemiology Treatment and Outcome of Childhood Arthritis. Criterion validity was assessed by examining the correlation of the 4 tested measures with physician measures and the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score in 10 joints (cJADAS10) in the whole sample and after grouping patients by International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR) category, geographic area, and education level. Reliability was assessed comparing 2 visits 7-14 days apart with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).ResultsA total of 8,643 parents and 6,060 patients had all the evaluations available. Correlations of tested measures were moderate (0.4-0.7) with physician-reported measures. The level of correlation with the cJADAS10 remained stable after grouping patients by ILAR category, geographic areas, and level of education of the parent filling the questionnaire. In 442 parents and 344 children, ICCs ranged between 0.79 and 0.87 for parents and 0.81 and 0.88 for children.ConclusionThe 4 tested parent/child-reported outcomes showed good criterion validity and excellent reliability. These tools can be considered for remote patient assessment, when in-person evaluation might not be possible.
| S-EPMC10087383 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are measures of the outcome of treatment(s) reported directly by the patient or carer. There is increasing international policy interest in using these to assess the impact of clinical care.AimsTo identify suitably validated PROMs for asthma and examine their potential for use in clinical settings.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases from 1990 onwards to identify PROMs for asthma. These were critically appraised, then narratively synthesised. We also identified the generic PROMs commonly used alongside asthma-specific PROMs.ResultsWe identified 68 PROMs for asthma, 13 of which were selected through screening as being adequately developed to warrant full-quality appraisal: 8 for adults, 4 for children and 1 for a child's caregiver. The PROMs found to be sufficiently well validated to offer promise for use in clinical settings were the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and mini-AQLQ for adults, and Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire for children. Rhinasthma was considered promising in simultaneously assessing the impact of asthma and rhinitis in those with coexistent disease. We identified 28 generic PROMs commonly used in conjunction with asthma-specific instruments.ConclusionsWe identified asthma PROMs that offer the greatest potential for use in clinical settings. Further work is needed to assess whether these are fit-for-purpose for use in clinical practice with individual patients. In particular, there is a need to ensure these are validated for use in clinical settings, acceptable to patients, caregivers and clinicians, and yield meaningful outcomes.
| S-EPMC4373322 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the feasibility of a digital and continuous collection and reporting of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) for chronic heart failure (CHF).DesignA single-site pilot study was settled for evaluating the feasibility of the intervention, both using qualitative and quantitative data (ie, workshop, surveys).SettingThe pilot has been implemented in a Tuscan specialised hospital (Italy).Participants162 patients were involved. Inclusion criteria were: a previous diagnosis of HF, age ≥18 years, absence of cognitive impairment or active tumours, ability to provide informed consent to study participation.InterventionThe continuous collection and reporting of PROMs and PREMs has been designed and implemented in 2018. PREMs questionnaires for patients were developed, while Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 was used for assessing PROMs. Questionnaires are administered at specific time points: discharge; 30 days, 7 and 12 months after the discharge. Enrolment of patients, administration and real-time reporting of questionnaires are carried on through a digital platform.Outcome measuresEnrolment, response and drop-out rates were considered to assess the feasibility of the intervention. Qualitative data were collected during meetings and workshops with health workers. The representativeness of the recruited sample with respect to the population characteristics was also evaluated.ResultsThe system has been successfully implemented during 2018. Response rates have been consistently above 50%, demonstrating patients' transversal willingness to participate. All the involved stakeholders acknowledged the feasibility of the design. The recruited sample is significantly different in terms of age and educational level compared with the overall population characteristics.ConclusionIt is possible to run a web-based systematic collection and reporting system for CHF patient-reported data. Systematic collection and reporting of PROMs and PREMs data allows professionals to increasingly assume CHF patient perspective in their daily work. Limitations will be used to improve the system.
| S-EPMC7537457 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPeople with multimorbidity are increasingly engaged, enabled, and empowered to take responsibility for managing their health status. The purpose of the study was to systematically review and appraise the psychometric properties of tools measuring patient engagement in adults with multimorbidity and their applicability for use within engagement programs.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycInfo were searched from inception to 1 July 2021. Gray literature was searched using EBSCO host-database "Open dissertation". The reference lists of studies meeting the inclusion criteria were searched to identify additional eligible studies. The screening of the search results and the data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated with the COSMIN checklist. Relevant data from all included articles were extracted and summarized in evidence synthesis tables.ResultsTwenty articles on eight tools were included. We included tools that measure all four dimensions of patient engagement (i.e., engagement, empowerment, activation, and participation). Their psychometric properties were analyzed separately. Most tools were developed in the last 10 years in Europe or the USA. The comparison of the estimated psychometric properties of the retrieved tools highlighted a significant lack of reliable patient engagement measures for people with multimorbidity. Available measures capture a diversity of constructs and have very limited evidence of psychometric properties that are vital for patient-reported measures, such as invariance, reliability, and responsiveness.ConclusionThis review clarifies how patient engagement, as operationalized in measures purporting to capture this concept, overlaps with, and differs from other related constructs in adults with multimorbidity. The methodological quality of psychometric tools measuring patient engagement in adults with multimorbidity could be improved.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=259968, identifier CRD42021259968.
| S-EPMC11294995 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeInformal caregivers provide invaluable help and support to people with cancer. As treatments extend survival and the potential burdens on carers increase, there is a need to assess the impact of the role. This systematic review identified instruments that measure the impact of caregiving, evaluated their psychometric performance specifically in cancer and appraised the content.MethodsA two-stage search strategy was employed to: (1) identify instruments that measure the impact of caregiving, and (2) run individual searches on each measure to identify publications evaluating psychometric performance in the target population. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO and restricted to English for instrument used and article language. Psychometric performance was evaluated for content and construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, precision, responsiveness and acceptability. Individual scale items were extracted and systematically categorised into conceptual domains.ResultsTen papers were included reporting on the psychometric properties of eight measures. Although construct validity and internal consistency were most frequently evaluated, no study comprehensively evaluated all relevant properties. Few studies met our inclusion criteria so it was not possible to consider the psychometric performance of the measures across a group of studies. Content analysis resulted in 16 domains with 5 overarching themes: lifestyle disruption; well-being; health of the caregiver; managing the situation and relationships.ConclusionsFew measures of caregiver impact have been subject to psychometric evaluation in cancer caregivers. Those that have do not capture well changes in roles and responsibilities within the family and career, indicating the need for a new instrument.
| S-EPMC4945691 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This review article systematically reviews the use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Vitreoretinal surgery, with the aim of recommending a preferred PROM-tool for use in clinical practice. Vitreoretinal surgery lags behind other ophthalmic subspecialties in the adoption of PROMs as a core outcome measure of success post-operatively. Current outcomes rely heavily on post-operative Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) and anatomical success on imaging modalities such as Ocular Coherence Tomography (OCT), despite the link between each of these measures and patient satisfaction being uncertain. We systematically reviewed the available literature in March 2021, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, searching six databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, APA PsycINFO, SCOPUS and Cochrane Library. Critical appraisal of PROM-tools was facilitated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist. We identified 14 eligible original research papers that used PROMs as a primary or secondary outcome of success post-operatively in patients having undergone vitreoretinal surgery. Eight different generic and vision-related PROM-tools were identified as being used in vitreoretinal studies, none of which were vitreoretinal-disease-specific. Our review article considers whether generic-health PROMs (e.g., EQ5D) or vision-related PROMs (e.g. NEI VFQ-25) are precise or responsive enough following vitreoretinal surgery to have a meaningful impact on clinical or research practice. We also consider the importance of standardisation of clinical outcomes in vitreoretinal clinical trials.
| S-EPMC9905525 | biostudies-literature