Instruments for Assessing Patient-reported Experience Measures Among Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: a Scoping Review

Overview

Journal J Patient Rep Outcomes

Date 2025 Feb 8

PMID 39921791

Authors

Soe Sandi Tint

Myo Zin Oo

Nida Buawangpong

Wichuda Jiraporncharoen

Nutchar Wiwatkunupakarn

Kittipan Rerkasem

Kanokwan Kulprachakarn

Hataichanok Chuljerm

Timothy E OBrien

Rohini Mathur

Chaisiri Angkurawaranon

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Diabetes Mellitus (DM) management is increasingly focusing on patient-centered care, making patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) critical for understanding the subjective aspects of diabetes treatment and self-management. These measures differ based on cultural contexts and individual perspectives, leading different countries to the development of country-specific tools to assess care quality from the patient's viewpoint. This review aimed to identify available instruments for assessing patient-reported experiences in individuals with diabetes and examine the different domains, items, and the validity and reliability of these instruments.

Methods: Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, databases including PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched for English-language articles without year limitations. This scoping review focused on PREMs that evaluate the quality of diabetes care among adolescent and adult patients with type 1 and type 2 DM. Studies that used patient expectation questionnaires, involved individuals not receiving care, or focused on patient-reported outcomes rather than experiences were excluded.

Results: Eight articles from six countries representing different healthcare settings were included, mostly from developed countries. A variety of methodologies were used to develop these PREM instruments, with unique domains and items. Content analysis revealed five commonly measured domains: (1) care planning, (2) patient education, (3) professionalism, (4) quality of care, and (5) hospital care and transition, reflecting diverse patient experiences across healthcare services.

Conclusions: This scoping review identifies a limited number of tools for evaluating PREMs in diabetes care, highlighting variability in their development and domain coverage. Five core domains are proposed across different settings, with an emphasis on culturally adapted measures to enhance the accuracy of patient experience capture in diverse populations.

References

Reynolds A . Patient-centered Care. Radiol Technol. 2009; 81(2):133-47. View

Martin-Delgado J, Mula A, Guilabert M, Solis C, Gomez L, Ramirez Amat G . Development and validation in Ecuador of the EPD Questionnaire, a diabetes-specific patient-reported experience and outcome measure: A mixed-methods study. Health Expect. 2021; 25(5):2134-2146. PMC: 9615093. DOI: 10.1111/hex.13366. View

Bastemeijer C, Boosman H, van Ewijk H, Verweij L, Voogt L, Hazelzet J . Patient experiences: a systematic review of quality improvement interventions in a hospital setting. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2019; 10:157-169. PMC: 6535098. DOI: 10.2147/PROM.S201737. View

De Berardis G, Sacco M, Strippoli G, Pellegrini F, Graziano G, Tognoni G . Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events in people with diabetes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2009; 339:b4531. PMC: 2774388. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b4531. View

Terwee C, Bot S, de Boer M, van der Windt D, Knol D, Dekker J . Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 60(1):34-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012. View

Beattie M, Murphy D, Atherton I, Lauder W . Instruments to measure patient experience of healthcare quality in hospitals: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2015; 4:97. PMC: 4511995. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-015-0089-0. View

Engstrom M, Leksell J, Johansson U, Eeg-Olofsson K, Borg S, Palaszewski B . A disease-specific questionnaire for measuring patient-reported outcomes and experiences in the Swedish National Diabetes Register: Development and evaluation of content validity, face validity, and test-retest reliability. Patient Educ Couns. 2017; 101(1):139-146. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.07.016. View

Jamieson Gilmore K, Corazza I, Coletta L, Allin S . The uses of Patient Reported Experience Measures in health systems: A systematic narrative review. Health Policy. 2022; 128:1-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.07.008. View

Iversen H, Bjertnaes O, Helland Y, Skrivarhaug T . The Adolescent Patient Experiences of Diabetes Care Questionnaire (APEQ-DC): Reliability and Validity in a Study Based on Data from the Norwegian Childhood Diabetes Registry. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2020; 10:405-416. PMC: 6938190. DOI: 10.2147/PROM.S232166. View

10.

Powers M, Bardsley J, Cypress M, Funnell M, Harms D, Hess-Fischl A . Diabetes Self-management Education and Support in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Consensus Report of the American Diabetes Association, the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American.... Diabetes Care. 2020; 43(7):1636-1649. DOI: 10.2337/dci20-0023. View

11.

Peimani M, Nasli-Esfahani E, Sadeghi R . Patients' perceptions of patient-provider communication and diabetes care: A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Chronic Illn. 2018; 16(1):3-22. DOI: 10.1177/1742395318782378. View

12.

Steine S, Finset A, Laerum E . A new, brief questionnaire (PEQ) developed in primary health care for measuring patients' experience of interaction, emotion and consultation outcome. Fam Pract. 2001; 18(4):410-8. DOI: 10.1093/fampra/18.4.410. View

13.

Glasgow R, Wagner E, Schaefer J, Mahoney L, Reid R, Greene S . Development and validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). Med Care. 2005; 43(5):436-44. DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000160375.47920.8c. View

14.

Munn Z, Peters M, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E . Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018; 18(1):143. PMC: 6245623. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x. View

15.

Bull C, Teede H, Watson D, Callander E . Selecting and Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome and Experience Measures to Assess Health System Performance. JAMA Health Forum. 2022; 3(4):e220326. DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.0326. View

16.

Stuckey H, Peyrot M . Living with diabetes: literature review and secondary analysis of qualitative data. Diabet Med. 2020; 37(3):493-503. DOI: 10.1111/dme.14255. View

17.

Mokkink L, Prinsen C, Bouter L, de Vet H, Terwee C . The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument. Braz J Phys Ther. 2016; 20(2):105-13. PMC: 4900032. DOI: 10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0143. View

18.

Burt J, Rick J, Blakeman T, Protheroe J, Roland M, Bower P . Care plans and care planning in long-term conditions: a conceptual model. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2013; 15(4):342-54. PMC: 3976966. DOI: 10.1017/S1463423613000327. View

19.

. Patient education. American Academy of Family Physicians. Am Fam Physician. 2000; 62(7):1712-4. View

20.

Drojdahl Ryg N, Gram J, Haghighi M, Juhl C . Effects of Patient-Initiated Visits on Patient Satisfaction and Clinical Outcomes in a Type 1 Diabetes Outpatient Clinic: A 2-Year Randomized Controlled Study. Diabetes Care. 2021; . DOI: 10.2337/dc20-3083. View