ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Development of validated, context-specific patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) tools to enhance quality and patient safety in India.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medication Safety in India and Southeast Asia: A SWOT Analysis of Policies and Practices.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Review
- Impact of a Multifaceted Prevention Strategy on Invasive Fungal Infections in a Surgical Pediatric Cardiac ICU.Infection and drug resistance · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPatient-reported experience measures (PREMs) offer unique insights into patient perceptions of care. However, their implementation at the micro level with regards to patient safety remains limited. This study aimed to repurpose PREMs to co-produce validated, context-specific PREMs tools aimed at improving patient safety.
methodsA prospective mixed method approach was used to design PREMs-based tools. This multiphase study was conducted from September 2023 to April 2024. In phase 1, a core group identified 17 key processes to devise the PREMs tools. In phase 2, focus group discussions were conducted by the multidisciplinary principal teams to finalise the standard operating procedures for each key process and prepare the respective PREMs questionnaires. Patient safety was the primary construct. Relevant stakeholders, including patients, participated in the face and content validation of each PREMs tool during phase 3. Content Validity Index (CVI) was calculated using three indices, namely, item level CVI (I-CVI), scale-level CVI (S-CVI) and content validity ratio (CVR). The reliability of the questionnaires was checked using Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) values with pilot tests on patients.
results17 checklist format PREMs tools were developed. The I-CVI values for all the items in the questionnaires ranged from 0.73 to 1.00 and the CVR values ranged from 0.46 to 1.00. The S-CVI/AVG ranged from 0.89 to 1.00. These indicated strong content validity for all items and questionnaires. The reliability analysis for the 17 studies, based on the KR-20 values, ranged from 0.4324 to 0.9455. Except for 'fall prevention', all tools showed good internal consistency.
conclusionsWe offer a battery of patient safety oriented PREMs tools. Co-production of PREMs tools across an extensive range of patient care processes offers significant potential in patient safety implementation in addition to patient engagement.
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.