Artikel
Patient-Reported Experience Measures to Evaluate Digitally Supported Care Processes for Heart Failure: A Scoping Review
Suche in Medline nach
Autoren
-
Bianca Steiner
- German Foundation for the Chronically Ill, Berlin, Germany; University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Faculty III - Media, Information and Design, Hannover, Germany
-
Yalda Azizi
- University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Faculty III - Media, Information and Design, Hannover, Germany
-
Marlo Verket
- Department of Internal Medicine I, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
-
Benoit Tyl
- Bayer Healthcare SAS, Loos, France
-
Bettina Zippel-Schultz
- German Foundation for the Chronically Ill, Berlin, Germany
| Veröffentlicht: | 6. September 2024 |
|---|
Gliederung
Text
Introduction: The integration of Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREM) alongside traditional clinical outcomes is crucial for improving quality of care. Although PREMs are frequently measured in inpatient treatment settings, they are rarely employed in digitally supported care processes or longitudinal assessment of care pathways.
Methods: To gain an overview of PREMs used to cover patients' experiences with digitally supported care processes in heart failure (HF), a scoping review was conducted in Medline.
Results: Out of 538 publications, 29 were identified that focus on PREMs in digitally supported care processes across 9 unspecific and 14 disease-specific groups, with 5 manuscripts focusing on HF. PREMs were mostly assessed using self-developed, study-specific questionnaires lacking standardization and validity. In total, 9 PREM dimensions and 25 sub-dimensions were identified. This included care delivery, privacy, physician-patient relationship, involvement, administration, information, knowledge, technology, and experiences in general.
Conclusion: The findings suggest that the relevance of different dimensions assessed depends largely on the type of care rather than the underlying chronic disease.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
The authors declare that an ethics committee vote is not required.
