ArticleBMJ open2025
Developing the People's Experience Survey (PES): a mixed-methods study updating a patient-reported experience measure (PREM) for use in any healthcare setting across Wales.
Article in BMJ open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop and validate a bilingual experience survey for use in any NHS healthcare setting, to support service improvement.
designA prospective mixed-methods study.
settingAny healthcare setting in NHS Wales including primary, secondary, urgent and planned care.
participantsAn opportunistic sample of people with experience of using local healthcare services. Qualitative interviews and focus groups were held to develop a draft survey. These were followed by online data collection from a wide participant sample for statistical validation. The tool was translated and linguistically validated following recognised methods. Patient engagement leads were involved to ensure the tool met their needs.
resultsWe conducted and analysed five focus groups and four interviews, consisting of 33 people in total. 12 draft questions were developed related to key aspects of patient experience. A series of online surveys were conducted to test the draft questions, with 769 responses received. Data were analysed to assess completion rates, intra-rater reliability, internal consistency and convergent validity. One question had both sub-par intrarater reliability and poor convergent validity, and despite attempts to improve the wording, it failed to meet minimum requirements of validity and was subsequently removed. The final validated People's Experience Survey (PES) was subsequently translated into Welsh and validated with service users.
conclusionsThe PES is a reliable and valid tool, suitable for use in any healthcare setting. The robust processes that have been undertaken ensure that the questions included are available bilingually to collect reliable, meaningful data to support service improvement work.
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.