Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34043215›Full record

ArticleThe patient2021

Patient-Reported Experience and Outcome Measures in People Living with Diabetes: A Scoping Review of Instruments.

Jimmy Martin-Delgado, Mercedes Guilabert, José Mira-Solves

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Development and validation in Ecuador of the EPD Questionnaire, a diabetes-specific patient-reported experience and outcome measure: A mixed-methods study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jimmy Martin-DelgadoAtenea Research Group, Foundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research, Health District Alicante-Sant Joan, Carretera Nacional 332, Av. de Benidorm, Sant Joan d´Alacant, 03550, Alicante, Spain. jimmy.martind@umh.es.ORCID 0000-0003-4384-9197
Mercedes GuilabertDepartment of Health Psychology, Miguel Hernández University, Elche, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0706-9911
José Mira-SolvesAtenea Research Group, Foundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research, Health District Alicante-Sant Joan, Carretera Nacional 332, Av. de Benidorm, Sant Joan d´Alacant, 03550, Alicante, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6497-083X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetes mellitus is a global public health concern, with over 463 million people living with this chronic disease. Pathology complexity, management difficulty, and limited participation in care has resulted in healthcare systems seeking new strategies to engage people living with diabetes. Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were developed to address the gap between the healthcare system expectation and patient preference.

objectiveThis study aimed to review the existing literature on PREMs and PROMs specific to type 1 and 2 diabetes, and report the dimensions report the dimensions they have measured.

methodsA scoping review was conducted from January 1985 to March 2020 of six databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINHAL, Scopus, and BiblioPro, to identify PREM and PROM instruments specific for type 1 and 2 diabetes.

resultsOverall, 34 instruments were identified, 32 PROMs and two PREMs. The most common instrument included outcomes related to quality of life at 44% (n = 15), followed by satisfaction (whether with treatment, device, and healthy habits) at 26% (n = 9). Furthermore, instruments regarding personal well-being accounted for 15% (n = 5). For instruments that measure experiences of persons with diabetes, there were two scales of symptoms, and one related to the attitude patients have toward the disease.

conclusionsDiabetes-specific validated instruments mainly focus on quality of life, education, and treatment, and sometimes overlap each other, in their subscales and assessment dimensions. Constructs such as cultural and religious beliefs, leisure, and work life may need more attention. There appears to be a gap in instruments to measure experiences of individuals who "live with diabetes" and seek to lead a "normal life."

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Delivery of Health CareHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID34043215
PMCPMC8563512

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.