ArticleSystematic reviews2024
Barriers and enablers to the implementation of patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs/PREMs): protocol for an umbrella review.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Implementation strategies for embedding patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs/PREMs) in routine care: secondary analysis of an umbrella review.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Pooled it
- Defining disease stability in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: evidence from phase 3 clinical trials.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2026Trial
- From registration to insight: how STRONG AYA transforms registry data to enhance decision-support tools for adolescent and young adult oncology.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
- Piloting Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Cleft Lip and Palate Services in Aotearoa New Zealand.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026Article
- Adaptation of digital integration of PROMs and PREMs in oncology during implementation: a scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Article
- Developing a Prototype Machine Learning Model to Predict Quality of Life Measures in People Living With HIV.Integrated pharmacy research & practice · 2025Article
- Global Health Inequities in Orthopaedic Care: Perspectives Beyond the US.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2024Review
- Shared decision-making and disease management in advanced cancer and chronic kidney disease using patient-reported outcome dashboards.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Multidisciplinary Perspectives of Challenges in Infective Endocarditis Complicated by Septic Embolic-Induced Acute Myocardial Infarction.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs, respectively) are evidence-based, standardized questionnaires that can be used to capture patients' perspectives of their health and health care. While substantial investments have been made in the implementation of PROMs and PREMs, their use remains fragmented and limited in many settings. Analysis of multi-level barriers and enablers to the implementation of PROMs and PREMs has been hampered by the lack of use of state-of-the-art implementation science frameworks. This umbrella review aims to consolidate available evidence from existing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods systematic and scoping reviews covering factors that influence the implementation of PROMs and PREMs in healthcare settings.
methodsAn umbrella review of systematic and scoping reviews will be conducted following the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods reviews of studies focusing on the implementation of PROMs and/or PREMs in all healthcare settings will be considered for inclusion. Eight bibliographical databases will be searched. All review steps will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Included reviews will be appraised and data will be extracted in four steps: (1) assessing the methodological quality of reviews using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist; (2) extracting data from included reviews; (3) theory-based coding of barriers and enablers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 2.0; and (4) identifying the barriers and enablers best supported by reviews using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach. Findings will be presented in diagrammatic and tabular forms in a manner that aligns with the objective and scope of this umbrella review, along with a narrative summary. DISCUSSION: This umbrella review of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods systematic and scoping reviews will inform policymakers, researchers, managers, and clinicians regarding which factors hamper or enable the adoption and sustained use of PROMs and PREMs in healthcare settings, and the level of confidence in the evidence supporting these factors. Findings will orient the selection and adaptation of implementation strategies tailored to the factors identified. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023421845.
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.