SynthesisPloS one2022
Measuring patient centeredness with German language Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREM)-A systematic review and qualitative analysis according to COSMIN.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Organizational and Service Management Interventions for Improving the Patient Experience With Care: Systematic Review of the Effectiveness.The International journal of health planning and management · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Systematic review of eyecare Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) following COSMIN guidelines.Eye (London, England) · 2026Review
- Cultural Adaptation and Evaluation of Selected Measurement Properties of Slovenian Version of Consumer Emergency Care Satisfaction Scale (CECSS-SLO).Nursing open · 2026Article
- [Measuring patient experiences in healthcare-overview of methods and the Experienced Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (EPAT) as an example].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Review
- Through the patients' eyes: psychometric evaluation of the 64-item version of the Experienced Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (EPAT-64).BMJ quality & safety · 2025Article
- Development and Psychometric Testing of EPAT-16: A Short and Valid Measure for Patient-Centeredness From the Patient's Perspective.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Understanding experiences of optimal survivorship care: findings from a population-based study of cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Polish Adaptation and Psychometric Validation of the PREM-C9 Questionnaire for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Characterizing Different Multidisciplinary Team Models Implemented Within One Comprehensive Cancer Center.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient centeredness is an integral part of the quality of care. Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are assumed to be an appropriate tool to assess patient-centredness. An evaluation of German-speaking PREMs is lacking.
objectiveTo perform a systematic review and qualitative analysis of psychometric measurement qualities of German-language PREMs using for the first time a comprehensive framework of patient centredness.
methodsA systematic literature search was performed in Medline, PsycInfo, CINHAL, Embase, Cochrane database (last search 9th November 2021) for studies describing generic, surgery- or cancer care-specific PREMs. All questionnaires that were developed in or translated into German were included. The content of the included PREMs was evaluated using a comprehensive framework of patient centredness covering 16 domains. Baseline data of all PREM studies were extracted by two independent reviewers. Psychometric measurement qualities of the PREMs were assessed using current COSMIN guidelines.
resultsAfter removal of duplicates 3,457 abstracts were screened, of which 3,345 were excluded. The remaining 112 articles contained 51 PREMs, of which 12 were either developed in (4 PREMs) or translated into German (8 PREMs). Eight PREMs were generic (NORPEQ, PPE-15, PEACS, HCAHPS, QPPS, DUQUE, PEQ-G, Schoenfelder et al.), 4 cancer care-specific (EORTC IN-PATSAT32, PSCC-G, Danish National Cancer Questionnaire, SCCC) and none was surgery-specific. None of the PREMs covered all domains of patient-centeredness. Overall rating of structural validity was adequate only for PEACS and HCAHPS. High ratings for internal consistency were given for NORPEQ, Schoenfelder et al., PSCC-G and the SCCC. Cross-cultural validity for translated questionnaires was adequate only for the PSCC-G, while reliability was adequately assessed only for the EORTC IN-PATSAT32. Due to a lack of measurement gold standard and minimal important change, criterion validity and measurement invariance could not be assessed for any of the PREMs.
conclusionThis is the first systematic review using a comprehensive framework of patient centredness and shows that none of the included PREMs, even those translated from other languages into German, cover all aspects of patient centredness. Furthermore, all included PREMS show deficits in the results or evaluation of psychometric measurement properties. Nonetheless, based on the results, the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 and PSCC-G can be recommended for use in cancer patients in the German-language region, while the German versions of the HCAHPS, NORPEQ, PPE-15 and PEACS can be recommended as generic PREMs.
trial registrationRegistration. PROSPERO CRD42021276827.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.