ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2025
Evaluating the implementation of PROMs and PREMs in routine clinical care: co-design of tools from the perspective of patients and healthcare professionals.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Value in app store metadata and user reviews: A dual perspective on quality of Parkinson's and dementia apps.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in oncology practice: a communication-centered qualitative study on patient and healthcare professional perspectives.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Applying Behaviour Change Theory to Develop an Implementation Strategy for Nurse-Initiated Protocols in the Emergency Department.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- From Real-World Practice to an Ideal Rehabilitation Pathway in Osteoarthritis: A Delphi Consensus on Patient Itineraries.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Patient- and provider-level determinants of self-assessed health and well-being among adults with chronic conditions in Slovenian primary care.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Article
- How Do Open-Ended Interview and Closed-Ended Questionnaire Responses Compare? A Matched Mixed-Methods Study Examining Treatment Attitudes of Patients With Meniscal Tear and Persistent Pain.ACR open rheumatology · 2026Article
- Exploring feasible ways of person-reported outcome measurement in routine type 1 diabetes care: a protocol for the Diabeter-PROM study.Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImplementation of patient-reported measures (PRMs) is an integral element for patient-centered models; however, there is still hardly any quantitative evidence regarding its impact in routine care settings. The objective of this study was to codesign two concise tools that allow for a standardized and longitudinal assessment of the implementation of PRMs in routine care in terms of acceptability and perceived value from the perspective of both patients and healthcare professionals.
methodsA list of constructs and items to be presented, separately, to patients and healthcare professionals was created from evidence gathered through a narrative literature review. Focus groups, composed of either patients or healthcare professionals from different chronic conditions, were conducted for the co-design of independent assessments. Once agreement was reached, the content validity was examined in separate consensus meetings.
resultsA total of 10 patients and 10 healthcare professionals participated in the focus groups. After 7 focus groups, the PRMs Implementation Assessment Tool for patients (PRMIAT-P) was developed with 33 items in 9 constructs, and the tool for healthcare professionals (PRMIAT-HP) had 33 items in 16 constructs. Content validity was confirmed for both tools.
conclusionsThe perspective of patients and healthcare professionals regarding the implementation of PRMs in routine care can be evaluated quantitively with the PRMIAT tools. These tools are understandable, concise and comprehensive, and can be used in multiple settings and for different chronic conditions. They have been codesigned as a standard set to facilitate both longitudinal assessments and performing benchmarking among different initiatives.
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.