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
. 2025 Feb 17;23(1):15.
doi: 10.1186/s12955-025-02333-7.

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

Clara Amat-Fernandez  1   2   3 , Yolanda Pardo  4   5   6 , Montse Ferrer  1   2   3 , Guillermo Bosch  7 , Catalina Lizano-Barrantes  2   8 , Renata Briseño-Diaz  1   2 , Maria Vernet-Tomas  9 , Lluís Fumadó  10 , Marc Beisani  11 , Dolores Redondo-Pachón  12 , Anna Bach-Pascual  12 , Olatz Garin  13   14   15 ; Hospital de Mar Patient-Reported Measures Group
Collaborators, Affiliations

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

Clara Amat-Fernandez et al. Health Qual Life Outcomes. .

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.

Keywords: Co-design; Health care evaluation mechanisms; Health services research; Healthcare quality assessment; Implementation science; Patient centered care; Patient-reported experience measures; Patient-reported outcome measures; Routine clinical care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in this study. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Parc Salut Mar (2021/10182/I). Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Development process of the PRMs Implementation Assessment Tools
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Constructs and administration timeline for the PRMs Implementation Assessment Tools for patients and healthcare professionals
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Coulter A. Measuring what matters to patients. BMJ. 2017;356. - PubMed
    1. World Health Assembly, 69. Framework on integrated, people-centred health services: report by the Secretariat. World Health Organization; 2016. Report No.: A69/39. Available from: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/252698.
    1. Speight J, Barendse SM. FDA guidance on patient reported outcomes. BMJ. 2010;340:518. - PubMed
    1. Kingsley C, Patel SP. Patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures. BJA Educ. 2017;17:137–44.
    1. Santana M-J, Ahmed S, Lorenzetti D, Jolley RJ, Manalili K, Zelinsky S, et al. Measuring patient-centred system performance: a scoping review of patient-centred care quality indicators. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e023596. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources