ArticleCureus2025
A Multicentric Study to Validate the Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREM) Tool for Wound Management and Safety in India.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffective wound management is a vital aspect of healthcare that significantly influences patient morbidity and mortality. While traditional wound care quality assessments focus on clinical outcomes such as healing rates, infection control, and recurrence, patient experience during wound therapy remains an important yet underexplored dimension of care quality.
objectiveThis multi-centric prospective study aimed to develop and validate a Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREM) tool specifically designed to capture patient perspectives on safety, communication, infection prevention, and overall care during wound dressing procedures within the Indian healthcare setting.
methodsSeventeen hospitals across diverse geographic regions and varying sizes in India participated. The PREM tool was developed through a systematic process involving iterative surveys, focus group discussions with healthcare professionals, and pilot testing. The initial tool included 19 items covering communication, infection control, patient education, privacy, and patient identification. After pilot testing with 170 patients, the instrument was refined and administered to 904 patients. Psychometric validation was performed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
resultsThe PREM tool demonstrated excellent reliability with a Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) internal consistency coefficient of 0.748. Majority of patients reported positive experiences: 91.3% confirmed name and ID verification prior to dressing, 95.7% received procedure explanations, 100% observed infection control practices, and 97.6% reported maintained privacy. However, only 56.7% received adequate training for home wound care, and 59.1% could demonstrate dressing techniques to healthcare providers, highlighting a need for improved patient education. Enhanced patient adherence to infection control measures reflected increased awareness following the COVID-19 pandemic.
conclusionThe study underscores the importance of incorporating patient feedback into wound care quality evaluation, complementing traditional clinical outcomes with experiential factors that influence patient satisfaction and adherence. The validated PREM tool offers a structured framework for healthcare providers to assess and enhance the wound care experience, promoting patient-centered care. Future research should focus on cross-cultural validation, demographic diversification, and integration of PREM data with clinical parameters to improve wound care quality comprehensively.
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.