Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40730461›Full record

ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2026

Person-centred emergency care: translation and cross-cultural validation of the Australian Emergency Department Patient-Reported Experience Measure (ED PREM) in the Netherlands.

Renée A M Tuinte, Claudia Bull, Job M Hoonhorst, Reinier P Akkermans, Marie Louise Moors, Jaap Ten Oever, Marlies Ejl Hulscher, Jacobien J Hoogerwerf

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Renée A M TuinteRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Internal Medicine, Radboud Community for Infectious Diseases, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands renee.tuinte@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4225-9400
Claudia BullFaculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4064-652X
Job M HoonhorstRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Internal Medicine, Radboud Community for Infectious Diseases, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-9861-1247
Reinier P AkkermansIQ Health Science Department, Department of Primary and Community Care, Research Institute for Medical Innovation, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marie Louise MoorsEmergency Department, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jaap Ten OeverRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Internal Medicine, Radboud Community for Infectious Diseases, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2397-0125
Marlies Ejl HulscherIQ Health Science Department, Radboud Community for Infectious Diseases, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2160-4810
Jacobien J HoogerwerfRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Internal Medicine, Radboud Community for Infectious Diseases, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9957-3703

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeasuring and evaluating patient experience in the emergency department (ED) is essential for improving the quality of emergency care. However, specific and validated tools to measure patient experience in the ED are lacking in many countries. The aim of this study was therefore to translate and cross-culturally validate the Australian ED Patient-Reported Experience Measure (ED PREM) for the Dutch setting.

methodsA single-centre validation study was conducted in a Dutch academic hospital. Step 1 involved forward and backward translation to produce a Dutch translation of the ED PREM (prototype). Step 2 involved establishing face and content validity of the Dutch prototype through cognitive patient interviews and researcher team consensus meetings. Step 3 involved administering the resultant Dutch pilot ED PREM to an ED population (n=527), to be able to perform psychometric analyses on this sample. Descriptive statistics and item reduction analyses were conducted prior to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). CFA was used to confirm the structural validity of the Dutch ED PREM, and internal consistency was assessed.

resultsThe face and content validity of the prototype Dutch ED PREM was 'good' after 15 cognitive interviews and expert consultation. Over two-thirds of participants (357/527) completed the Dutch pilot ED PREM. Scores were high across all four domains. Several items were removed due to high ceiling effects and a large number of 'not applicable' responses. The final 18-item Dutch ED PREM showed acceptable model fit with CFA (χ

conclusionsThe final 18-item Dutch ED PREM showed good validity and reliability for measuring ED patient experience. It is suitable and feasible for use in clinical practice to assess and improve the person-centredness of emergency care.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalPatient-Centered CarePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SatisfactionPsychometricsAdultAustraliaCross-Cultural ComparisonFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesTranslatingemergency departmentqualityquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID40730461
PMCPMC13638289

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.