Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42851634›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2026

Patient-reported experiences and patient-reported experience measures in primary care, home care, and community settings. A scoping review.

Ilaria Marcomini, Nicoletta Troiano, Mattia Bozzetti, Debora Rosa, Giulia Villa, Andrea Poliani, Duilio Fiorenzo Manara

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Ilaria MarcominiCenter for Nursing Research and Innovation, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Nicoletta TroianoCenter for Nursing Research and Innovation, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Mattia BozzettiDirection of Health Professions, ASST Cremona, Cremona, Italy.
Debora RosaCenter for Nursing Research and Innovation, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Giulia VillaCenter for Nursing Research and Innovation, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Andrea PolianiCenter for Nursing Research and Innovation, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Duilio Fiorenzo ManaraCenter for Nursing Research and Innovation, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

communitypatient reported experiencepatient reported experience measuresprimary carereview

Identifiers

PMID42851634
PMCPMC13646105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.