Evaluating the implementation of PROMs and PREMs in routine clinical care: co-design of tools from the perspective of patients and healthcare professionals

Mostra el registre complet Registre parcial de l'ítem

• dc.contributor.author Amat-Fernández, Clara
• dc.contributor.author Pardo Cladellas, Yolanda
• dc.contributor.author Ferrer Forés, Maria Montserrat
• dc.contributor.author Bosch, Guillermo
• dc.contributor.author Lizano-Barrantes, Catalina
• dc.contributor.author Briseño-Diaz, Renata
• dc.contributor.author Vernet-Tomás, Maria
• dc.contributor.author Fumadó Ciutat, Lluis
• dc.contributor.author Beisani, Marc
• dc.contributor.author Redondo Pachón, María Dolores
• dc.contributor.author Bach Pascual, Anna
• dc.contributor.author Garin Boronat, Olatz, 1979-
• dc.contributor.author Hospital de Mar Patient-Reported Measures Group
• dc.date.accessioned 2025-11-18T13:38:51Z
• dc.date.available 2025-11-18T13:38:51Z
• dc.date.issued 2025
• dc.date.updated 2025-11-18T13:38:51Z
• dc.description.abstract Background: Implementation of patient-reported measures (PRMs) is an integral element for patient-centered models; however, there is still hardly any quantitative evidence regarding its impact in routine care settings. The objective of this study was to codesign two concise tools that allow for a standardized and longitudinal assessment of the implementation of PRMs in routine care in terms of acceptability and perceived value from the perspective of both patients and healthcare professionals. Methods: A list of constructs and items to be presented, separately, to patients and healthcare professionals was created from evidence gathered through a narrative literature review. Focus groups, composed of either patients or healthcare professionals from different chronic conditions, were conducted for the co-design of independent assessments. Once agreement was reached, the content validity was examined in separate consensus meetings. Results: A total of 10 patients and 10 healthcare professionals participated in the focus groups. After 7 focus groups, the PRMs Implementation Assessment Tool for patients (PRMIAT-P) was developed with 33 items in 9 constructs, and the tool for healthcare professionals (PRMIAT-HP) had 33 items in 16 constructs. Content validity was confirmed for both tools. Conclusions: The perspective of patients and healthcare professionals regarding the implementation of PRMs in routine care can be evaluated quantitively with the PRMIAT tools. These tools are understandable, concise and comprehensive, and can be used in multiple settings and for different chronic conditions. They have been codesigned as a standard set to facilitate both longitudinal assessments and performing benchmarking among different initiatives.
• dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
• dc.identifier.citation Amat-Fernandez C, Pardo Y, Ferrer M, Bosch G, Lizano-Barrantes C, Briseño-Diaz R, Vernet-Tomas M, Fumado L, Beisani M, Redondo-Pachon D, Bach-Pascual A, Garin O; Hospital de Mar Patient-Reported Measures Group. Evaluating the implementation of PROMs and PREMs in routine clinical care: co-design of tools from the perspective of patients and healthcare professionals. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2025 Feb 17;23(1):15. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-025-02333-7
• dc.identifier.doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-025-02333-7
• dc.identifier.issn 1477-7525
• dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10230/71921
• dc.language.iso eng
• dc.publisher BioMed Central
• dc.relation.ispartof Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2025;23(1):15
• dc.rights © The Author(s) 2025. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
• dc.rights.accessRights info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
• dc.rights.uri http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• dc.subject.keyword Co-design
• dc.subject.keyword Health care evaluation mechanisms
• dc.subject.keyword Health services research
• dc.subject.keyword Healthcare quality assessment
• dc.subject.keyword Implementation science
• dc.subject.keyword Patient centered care
• dc.subject.keyword Patient-reported experience measures
• dc.subject.keyword Patient-reported outcome measures
• dc.subject.keyword Routine clinical care
• dc.title Evaluating the implementation of PROMs and PREMs in routine clinical care: co-design of tools from the perspective of patients and healthcare professionals
• dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
• dc.type.version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion