Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Nov 15;8(1):133.
doi: 10.1186/s41687-024-00795-9.

How patient-reported outcomes and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) are implemented in healthcare professional and patient organizations? An environmental scan

Véronique Lowry  1 , Vanessa Tremblay-Vaillancourt  1 , Priscilla Beaupré  1 , Marie-Dominique Poirier  1 , Marie-Ève Perron  1 , Jessica Bernier  1 , Anaëlle Morin  1 , Caroline Cormier  1 , Jeannie Haggerty  2 , Sara Ahmed  3 , Magaly Brodeur  1 , Geneviève David  4 , Sylvie Lambert  5 , Maude Laberge  6 , Diana Zidarov  7 , Regina Visca  2 , Thomas G Poder  8 , Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun  6 , Maxime Sasseville  9 , Marie-Eve Poitras  10
Affiliations

How patient-reported outcomes and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) are implemented in healthcare professional and patient organizations? An environmental scan

Véronique Lowry et al. J Patient Rep Outcomes. .

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are becoming essential parts of a learning health system, and using these measures is a promising approach for value-based healthcare. However, evidence regarding healthcare professional and patient organizations' knowledge, use and perception of PROMs and PREMs is lacking.

Objectives: The objectives of the study were to: 1- Describe the current knowledge and use of PROMs and PREMs by healthcare professional and patient organizations, 2- Describe the determinants of PROMs and PREMs implementation according to healthcare professional and patient organizations.

Methods: We conducted an environmental scan using semi-structured interviews with representatives from healthcare professional and patient organizations. Interviews were recorded and live coded based on the Franklin framework. We used inductive and deductive thematic analysis to extract information about the main themes addressed during the interview (awareness of PROMs and PREMs, examples of implementation and use of PROMs and PREMs, tools used, vision for future implementation, barriers and facilitators to implementation and the best way to collect PROMs and PREMs data).

Results: 63% of healthcare professional organizations (n = 19) and 41% of patient organizations (n = 9) that were contacted agreed to have a representative interviewed. The representatives from both the healthcare professional and patient organizations acknowledged the importance of assessing patients' experience and outcomes. However, they considered the implementation of PROMs and PREMs tools to be scarce within their organizations, in clinical practice and in the education system. Patient organizations were worried that overuse of PROMs and PREMs could lead to depersonalization of practice. Barriers to implementing PROMs and PREMs included lack of awareness of tools, resistance to change and lack of motivation to complete or explain the questionnaire. Barriers also included factors such as lack of financial, technological and human resources and issues with integration of data and inconsistency of digital platforms.

Conclusions: This environmental scan revealed a lack of awareness of tools by healthcare professional and patient organizations' representatives and limited implementation. Adequate training, technological integration, and demonstration of PROMs and PREMs benefits to foster broader adoption in clinical and organizational settings is dearly needed. Addressing these challenges is essential for enhancing value-based care.

Keywords: Environmental scan; Healthcare professional organizations; Interviews; Learning health system; PREMs; PROMs; Patient organizations; Patient-reported experience measure; Patient-reported outcome measures.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate According to the Tri-Council Policy Statement for human ethical research, informants were not considered as research participants, and we were exempted of ethic approval by the ethic research committee. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Schematization of the method of the project
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Flow diagram of healthcare and patient organizations’ selection process
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Facilitators to implementing PROMs and PREMs
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Barriers to implementing PROMs and PREMs
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Benson T (2020) Measure what we want: a taxonomy of short generic person-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs). BMJ Open Qual. 9(1):e000789 - PMC - PubMed
    1. McMillan SS, Kendall E, Sav A, King MA, Whitty JA, Kelly F et al (2013) Patient-centered approaches to health care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Med care Res Rev 70(6):567–596 - PubMed
    1. Weldring T, Smith SM (2013) Article commentary: patient-reported outcomes (pros) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights 6:HSI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Haute Autorité de Santé HAS (2021) Qualité Des Soins perçue par Le patient - indicateurs PROMs et PREMs: panorama d’expériences étrangères et principaux enseignements. Etudes et rapports. Saint-Denis La Plaine
    1. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2019) Patient-reported indicators for assessing health system performance - Measuring what matters: The patient-reported indicator surveys, p. 85

LinkOut - more resources