SynthesisFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2026
Patient-reported experiences and patient-reported experience measures in primary care, home care, and community settings. A scoping review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are increasingly used to evaluate person-centred and value-based healthcare. However, evidence regarding their application in primary, home, and community care remains fragmented. Objective: To map how patient-reported experiences (PREs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) have been conceptualized, measured, and used across primary, home, and community care settings. Methods: The review followed Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 2025. Peer-reviewed studies investigating PREs or PREMs in primary, home, or community care were included. Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics, thematic content analysis, and narrative synthesis. Results: Overall, 168 studies were included, predominantly quantitative and conducted in high-income countries. Among them, 105 exclusively used validated PREMs, 45 used Discussion: PREM use in primary, home, and community care is increasing but remains heterogeneous in terms of conceptualization, measurement approaches, and domains assessed. Greater standardization of PREMs and broader inclusion of equity-sensitive domains are needed to strengthen the relevance and comparability of patient experience assessment across care settings. Conclusion: PREMs offer substantial potential to support person-centred quality improvement beyond hospital settings, but their current use does not yet fully capture the diversity of patient experiences. Future research should prioritize standardized and context-sensitive measurement approaches, greater attention to equity, and stronger representation of underserved populations and low- and middle-income settings. Systematic Review Registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/R5SQF, Identifier: 10.17605/OSF.IO/R5SQF.
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.