Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39819211›Full record

ReviewExpert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research2025

A perspective on the use of patient-reported experience and patient-reported outcome measures in ambulatory healthcare.

Ron D Hays, Denise D Quigley

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Ron D HaysDepartment of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6697-907X
Denise D QuigleyRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.

Funding

AHRQ HHS U18 HS029321
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPatient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are patient reports about their healthcare, whereas patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are reports about their functioning and well-being regarding physical, mental, and social health. We provide a perspective on using PREMs and PROMs in ambulatory healthcare. AREAS COVERED: We conducted a narrative review of the literature about using PREMs and PROMs in research and clinical practice, identified challenges and possibilities for addressing them, and provided suggestions for future research and clinical practice. EXPERT OPINION: Substantial progress in using PREMs and PROMs has occurred during the last half-century. Collecting and reporting PREMs to clinicians in ambulatory care settings has improved communication with patients, diagnosis, and treatment, which may improve patients' health. Optimal use requires appropriate data analysis, minimizing implementation barriers, and facilitating interpretation of PREMs and PROMs in clinical practice. Also, formal structures and processes that include patient and family input into care improvement are needed (e.g. patient and family advisory councils as partners in co-design and coproduction of quality improvement). PREMs and PROMs have been used primarily in more affluent countries (e.g. the United States, Australia, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Japan, and Portugal), but this is expected to increase in many countries.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareDelivery of Health CarePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresCommunicationHumansQuality ImprovementAmbulatory healthcareclinical practicepatient-reported experiencepatient-reported outcomeself-reported healthsurvey

Identifiers

PMID39819211
PMCPMC12182636

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.