ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026
Implementation of My Hearing PREM Into Three UK Audiology Services: A Pluralist Approach to Planning, Design and Evaluation.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2026. 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
Abstract
introductionMy Hearing PREM (patient reported experience measure) is a validated tool for use in audiology services, to measure patients' experiences of living with hearing loss, and support from family and services. This study planned and evaluated the process of implementing My Hearing PREM into audiology services.
methodsImplementation planning and design was informed by the person-based approach and involved patients, public and audiology staff. My Hearing PREM was implemented into three NHS audiology services for 3 months. Evaluation of implementation used quantitative methods to determine PREM use and cost, and qualitative interviews with staff and patients to assess the implementation process.
resultsA total of 95 participants contributed data across planning to evaluation. Clinicians were generally willing to use the PREM and it was seen as a tool to access the lived experience of patients. Patients felt the PREM enabled them to reflect on their situation and experiences. The per patient cost of PREM implementation was between £1.57 and £3.18. PREM use varied across sites and integration into routine practice was inconsistent. Barriers to use within services included time constraints, difficulties in storing responses on electronic systems, discomfort from staff asking patients about their perceptions of clinical care, and views that it duplicated work.
conclusionsMy Hearing PREM can support, at low cost, more personalized, reflective care in audiology by bringing patient experience to the fore. Long-term integration in clinical services will depend on tackling practical barriers as well as addressing clinician concerns about the purpose of PREMs and aligning with services' ways of working. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A PPIE representative with lived experience of hearing loss contributed throughout. They contributed to the development of interview schedules, reviewed data analysis interpretations to ensure findings reflected participants experiences, and provided guidance on the development of implementation resources. This collaborative approach ensured that the implementation planning remained grounded in the real-world experiences and need of people with hearing loss.
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.