ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025
Instruments for assessing patient-reported experience measures among patients with diabetes mellitus: a scoping review.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient-reported experiences and patient-reported experience measures in primary care, home care, and community settings. A scoping review.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Patient-Centered Diabetes Care Through an Ethical Lens: Associations with Patient Satisfaction and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Saudi Primary Healthcare.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of a Culturally Adapted Patient-Reported Experience Measure for Diabetes Care in Thailand: Mixed-Methods Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Barriers and facilitators to using patient-reported experience measures for diabetes care: a qualitative study in Thailand.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDiabetes Mellitus (DM) management is increasingly focusing on patient-centered care, making patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) critical for understanding the subjective aspects of diabetes treatment and self-management. These measures differ based on cultural contexts and individual perspectives, leading different countries to the development of country-specific tools to assess care quality from the patient's viewpoint. This review aimed to identify available instruments for assessing patient-reported experiences in individuals with diabetes and examine the different domains, items, and the validity and reliability of these instruments.
methodsFollowing PRISMA-ScR guidelines, databases including PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched for English-language articles without year limitations. This scoping review focused on PREMs that evaluate the quality of diabetes care among adolescent and adult patients with type 1 and type 2 DM. Studies that used patient expectation questionnaires, involved individuals not receiving care, or focused on patient-reported outcomes rather than experiences were excluded.
resultsEight articles from six countries representing different healthcare settings were included, mostly from developed countries. A variety of methodologies were used to develop these PREM instruments, with unique domains and items. Content analysis revealed five commonly measured domains: (1) care planning, (2) patient education, (3) professionalism, (4) quality of care, and (5) hospital care and transition, reflecting diverse patient experiences across healthcare services.
conclusionsThis scoping review identifies a limited number of tools for evaluating PREMs in diabetes care, highlighting variability in their development and domain coverage. Five core domains are proposed across different settings, with an emphasis on culturally adapted measures to enhance the accuracy of patient experience capture in diverse populations.
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.