ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2026
Patient-reported experience measure (PREM) for patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD): modification of a pre-existing measure.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Home Monitoring in Interstitial Lung Disease: Protocol for a Real-World Observational Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePatient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are a key component of healthcare accountability frameworks, health policy, integrated care board commissioning and integrated care partnerships generating data which are crucial markers of patient care quality. The Rheumatoid Arthritis Patient-Reported Experience Measure (RA-PREM) incorporates the eight core elements of NHS Patient Experience Framework and is validated in a range of rheumatic conditions. Our objective is to determine the acceptability and feasibility of the RA-PREM for an interstitial lung disease (ILD) population.
designA mixed-methods patient-centred approach incorporating an interdisciplinary research steering group with patient partners. Patient surveys evaluated the language and meaning of the RA-PREM 8 domains, 24 statements and response categories. A patient focus group examined contentious statements. A consensus group of expert patient-partners agreed statements for the modified RA-PREM. Focus group participants reviewed the modified instrument (ILD-PREM) for acceptability and face/content validity.
settingA single NHSE-commissioned, regional ILD service/UK.
resultsThirteen patients (10 male) diagnosed with ILD participated in focus group discussions. Critical discussion of the RA-PREM resulted in nuanced modifications of four statements of three domains. Five patients (three male) and three healthcare researchers attained consensus on the face/content validity of statements. Seventy-three patients completed the ILD-PREM following outpatient contact.
conclusionThe ILD-PREM retains 24 statements representing the eight domains of the RA-PREM. It meets face/content validity criteria and is acceptable to an ILD population. Longitudinal validation of the ILD-PREM across ILD services including further testing in global minority groups will establish criterion and construct validity and objective measures of reliability.
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.