Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36459251›Full record

ReviewJournal of patient-reported outcomes2022

Patient and healthcare provider perceptions on using patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in routine clinical care: a systematic review of qualitative studies.

Chindhu Shunmuga Sundaram, Rachel Campbell, Angela Ju, Madeleine T King, Claudia Rutherford

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Understanding the Role of Patients and Carers in a Virtual Hospital Through Journey Mapping: Multi-Method Triangulation Analysis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  9. Implementation of My Hearing PREM Into Three UK Audiology Services: A Pluralist Approach to Planning, Design and Evaluation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Peer-led plant-based cooking workshops for post-cancer patients: an observational pilot study on dietary practices.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Observational
  16. Review
  17. 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 · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Chindhu Shunmuga SundaramFaculty of Science, School of Psychology, Sydney Quality of Life Office, The University of Sydney, Level 6 North, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse (C39Z), Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Rachel CampbellFaculty of Science, School of Psychology, Sydney Quality of Life Office, The University of Sydney, Level 6 North, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse (C39Z), Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Angela JuFaculty of Science, School of Psychology, Sydney Quality of Life Office, The University of Sydney, Level 6 North, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse (C39Z), Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Madeleine T KingFaculty of Science, School of Psychology, Sydney Quality of Life Office, The University of Sydney, Level 6 North, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse (C39Z), Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Claudia RutherfordFaculty of Science, School of Psychology, Sydney Quality of Life Office, The University of Sydney, Level 6 North, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse (C39Z), Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. claudia.rutherford@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4637-4572

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-reported experience measures (PREMs) assess quality-of-care from patients' perspectives. PREMs can be used to enhance patient-centered care and facilitate patient engagement in care. With increasing quality improvement studies in clinical practice, the use of PREMs has surged. As a result, knowledge about stakeholder experiences of using PREMs to assess quality of care across diverse clinical settings is needed to inform PREM implementation efforts. To address this, this review examines the qualitative literature on patient and healthcare provider experiences of using PREMs in clinical practice.

methodsMedline, Embase and PsycInfo were systematically searched from inception to May 2021. Additional searching of reference lists for all included articles and relevant review articles were performed. Retrieved articles were screened for eligibility by one reviewer and 25% cross-checked by a second reviewer across all stages of the review. Full texts meeting eligibility criteria were appraised against the COREQ checklist for quality assessment and thematic analysis was used to analyze textual data extracted from the results.

resultsElectronic searches identified 2683 records, of which 20 studies met eligibility criteria. Extracted data were synthesized into six themes: facilitators to PREM implementation; barriers to PREM implementation; healthcare providers' perspectives towards using PREMs; patients' perspectives towards using PREMs; advantages of using PREMs in clinical practice; limitations and practical considerations to reduce resistance of PREM usage. The primary factors facilitating and impeding the use of PREMs include organizational-, staff- and patient-related factors.

conclusionResults can be used to guide the usage and implementation of PREMs in clinical settings by addressing the identified barriers and building on the perceived benefits to encourage adoption of PREMs. Results around facilitators to PREM implementation and practical considerations could also promote appropriate use of PREMs by healthcare providers, helping to improve practice and the quality of care based on patient feedback.

Identifiers

PMID36459251
PMCPMC9718906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.