ArticleSystematic reviews2024
Routine use of patient-reported experience and outcome measures for children and young people: a scoping 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 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.
- Using cognitive interviews with children to test the content validity of a paediatric patient reported experience measure.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Article
- Integrating optimal patient-centered care: patient- and family-reported experiences after complex treatment for rare diseases.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2026Article
- Health-related quality of life experiences in children with bladder exstrophy-epispadias complex: a Swedish focus group study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- The Use of EQ-5D for Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life and Its Determinants in Children with Complex Endocrine Conditions.Hormone research in paediatrics · 2026Article
- Co-Development and Validation of a Patient-Reported Experience Measure for Trans and Gender Diverse Young People: A Multi-Stage Participatory Study Protocol.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Generic health-related quality of life instruments among children and adolescents in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- A scoping review of the electronic collection and capture of patient reported outcome measures for children and young people in the hospital setting.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- How patient-reported outcomes and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) are implemented in healthcare professional and patient organizations? An environmental scan.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Article
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
backgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) measure people's views of their health status whereas patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are questionnaires measuring perceptions of their experience whilst receiving healthcare. PROMs/PREMs have the potential to enable children and young people (CYP) to be involved in decisions about their care and improve the quality of their care but it is not clear how often PROMs/PREMs are incorporated as part of standard care of CYP in the hospital setting. The aims of this scoping review were to understand the extent of the literature and map available evidence on the use, benefits, barriers and facilitators of PROMs/PREMs as part of standard care and treatment of CYP in hospitals.
methodsThe Joanna Briggs Institute review process was used to map existing evidence on the use of PROMs/PREMs in routine care of CYP in different hospital settings worldwide. Key search terms were developed and Ovid (Emcare, Embase MEDLINE, APA PsychInfo), Scopus and Web of Science were searched. Data were analysed using frequency counts and basic content analysis for thematic mapping according to the research questions. We undertook an initial search in February 2021 and updated this in April 2023.
resultsThe search yielded 68,004 studies, 388 were eligible for full text review and 172 met the inclusion criteria. PROMs were more commonly used than PREMs in routine care of CYP in hospitals; these were mostly collected using electronic collection and concentrated in specific specialities, settings, contexts and countries. The findings mapped the use of PROMs/PREMs, including how data are applied in clinical practice and used for service development, but this was not consistently reported. There are specific challenges in the implementation of PROMs/PREMs in routine care of CYP that need to be considered.
conclusionPROMs/PREMs have the potential to improve care for CYP in hospital settings contributing to different aspects of care. A better understanding of their use, how results can be applied in clinical practice and contribute to service development will enable meaningful employment. The popularity of electronically collected and captured PROMS/PREMs warrants further investigation to enable their meaningful use in routine care of CYP. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Not pre-registered.
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.