ArticleBMJ quality & safety2026
International survey of people living with chronic conditions: development and evaluation of the PaRIS Patient Questionnaire (PaRIS-PQ) in 18 countries.
Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2026. 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.
- The patient-doctor relationship questionnaire (PDRQ-9). An overview of 20 years of research and a proposal for normalisation of scores. Systematic review.Frontiers in health services · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Patient Reported Indicator Surveys (PaRIS) initiative of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development aimed to develop a valid and reliable instrument for self-reported assessment of health outcomes and experiences in primary and ambulatory care for people living with chronic conditions. This paper reports on the development and evaluation of the PaRIS Patient Questionnaire (PaRIS-PQ) in an 18-country field trial.
methodsFollowing systematic reviews of instruments measuring core domains in the PaRIS conceptual framework (outcomes, experiences, health and healthcare capabilities and health behaviours), four instruments for each domain were shortlisted, and their psychometric performance was assessed using the Evaluating the Measurement of Patient-Reported Outcomes tool. In a modified Delphi procedure, one instrument was selected for each domain, along with additional relevant items. The preliminary English questionnaire was translated and cognitively tested. Psychometric evaluation was conducted on field trial data at item (missingness, distribution, ceiling/floor effects) and scale level (reliability, structure, construct validity).
findings217 instruments were identified measuring one or more of the domains of the conceptual framework. Following mapping and prioritisation, the first draft of the PaRIS-PQ included 118 items. In the field trial (18 countries, 10 894 patients) median completion time ranged 24-33 minutes. PaRIS-PQ performed well at item and scale level. Reliability was ≥0.70 for most relevant measures at patient level, but not at practice and country level. Validity was adequate overall. Removal of additional items (3) resulted in the final PaRIS-PQ (115 items).
interpretationPaRIS-PQ demonstrates adequate psychometric performance for measuring experiences and outcomes of primary care for people living with chronic conditions. The instrument facilitates the collection of essential information for health policy and systems decision-making.
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.