Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41611934›Full record

SynthesisJournal of patient-reported outcomes2026

Implementation strategies for embedding patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs/PREMs) in routine care: secondary analysis of an umbrella review.

Guillaume Fontaine, Joshua Ramos, Meagan Mooney, Marie-Eve Perron, Laura Crump, Sylvie D Lambert

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Implementation of an ePRO-based system supporting treatment readiness assessments in lung cancer care: a mixed-methods study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Guillaume FontaineMcGill University, 680 Rue Sherbrooke O # 1800, Montréal, QC, H3A 2M7, Canada. guil.fontaine@mcgill.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7806-814X
Joshua RamosMcGill University, 680 Rue Sherbrooke O # 1800, Montréal, QC, H3A 2M7, Canada.
Meagan MooneyMcGill University, 680 Rue Sherbrooke O # 1800, Montréal, QC, H3A 2M7, Canada.
Marie-Eve PerronMcGill University, 680 Rue Sherbrooke O # 1800, Montréal, QC, H3A 2M7, Canada.
Laura CrumpMcGill University, 680 Rue Sherbrooke O # 1800, Montréal, QC, H3A 2M7, Canada.
Sylvie D LambertMcGill University, 680 Rue Sherbrooke O # 1800, Montréal, QC, H3A 2M7, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRoutine capture of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) is championed as core infrastructure for learning health systems and value-based care. Yet, the guidance on how to implement these measures is scattered. We synthesised evidence on implementation strategies used to introduce and sustain PROMs and PREMs, and examined how these strategies align with common barriers and stages of implementation.

methodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of an umbrella review (25 reviews; 1086 primary studies, 2014–2023) that catalogued implementation determinants and processes of PROMs and PREMs. Two reviewers independently coded implementation strategies using the 73-item Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy. Strategies were temporally mapped to the phases of the Exploration–Preparation–Implementation–Sustainment (EPIS) framework, and onto the barriers identified in the parent review using the CFIR × ERIC matching tool.

resultsTwenty of 25 reviews reported at least one implementation strategy, yielding 152 instances coded to 43 of 73 ERIC strategies. Pre-implementation strategies (74 instances) focused on local consensus building, readiness and barrier assessments, early IT integration, and front-loaded education and champion preparation. During implementation and sustainment (78 instances), the strategies most often used were audit and feedback, real-time data feedback to clinicians, reminders, facilitation, technical assistance, refresher training, and patient onboarding and prompts. Mapping strategies to key barriers showed reasonable coverage for workflow, staff capability, and organisational fit, but gaps for patient capability, long-term financing, data analytics, and equity. Thirty ERIC strategies were not identified, most relating to policy, financing, or market-shaping.

conclusionImplementing PROMs and PREMs in routine care requires coordinated changes in relationships, workflows, technology, and incentives. This study organises existing evidence into practical tools that health system teams and researchers can use to select, sequence, and resource implementation strategies for PROM and PREM programmes.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresHumansSecondary Data AnalysisValue-Based Health Care

Identifiers

PMID41611934
PMCPMC12864633

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.