ArticleBMJ open2023
Women's experiences with using patient-reported outcome and experience measures in routine perinatal care in the Netherlands: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Development of patient-reported experience and patient-reported outcome measurement tool for abortion care in Ethiopia: a mixed-method study.Reproductive health · 2026Article
- Validity and reliability of the quality of midwifery childbirth care from women's perspectives scale among Japanese women: a cross-sectional online survey.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Validity and Reliability of the Newly Developed Patient-Reported Experience Measures Tool for Effectively Assessing the Quality of Care and Patient Safety During Antenatal Services.Journal of patient experience · 2025Article
- Roles of different organizations in implementing patient-reported measures in routine maternity care in Finland.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Article
- Perinatal care in SARS-CoV-2 infected women: the lesson learnt from a national prospective cohort study during the pandemic in Italy.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Introducing standard patient-reported measures (PRMs) into routine maternity care: A pre-implementation qualitative study on women's perspectives in Finland.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- PROMs and PREMs in routine perinatal care: mixed methods evaluation of their implementation into integrated obstetric care networks.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo gain insight into the experiences of women with completing and discussing patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and patient-reported experience measures (PREM), and tailoring their care based on their outcomes.
designA mixed-methods prospective cohort study.
settingSeven obstetric care networks in the Netherlands that implemented a set of patient-centred outcome measures for pregnancy and childbirth (PCB set), published by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement.
participantsAll women, receiving the PROM and PREM questionnaires as part of their routine perinatal care, received an invitation for a survey (n=460) and an interview (n=16). The results of the survey were analysed using descriptive statistics; thematic inductive content analysis was applied on the data from open text answers and the interviews.
resultsMore than half of the survey participants (n=255) felt the need to discuss the outcomes of PROM and PREM with their care professionals. The time spent on completing questionnaires and the comprehensiveness of the questions was scored 'good' by most of the survey participants. From the interviews, four main themes were identified: content of the PROM and PREM questionnaires, application of these outcomes in perinatal care, discussing PREM and data capture tool. Important facilitators included awareness of health status, receiving personalised care based on their outcomes and the relevance of discussing PREM 6 months post partum. Barriers were found in insufficient information about the goal of PROM and PREM for individual care, technical problems in data capture tools and discrepancy between the questionnaire topics and the care pathway.
conclusionsThis study showed that women found the PCB set an acceptable and useful instrument for symptom detection and personalised care up until 6 months post partum. This patient evaluation of the PCB set has several implications for practice regarding the questionnaire content, role of care professionals and congruity with care pathways.
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.