{"title":"[评估肿瘤和慢性疾病的患者经验:对可用工具(PROMs, PREMs,满意度)的批判性分析]。","authors":"Loubna Diouri, Coralie Barbe, Stéphane Vignot","doi":"10.1016/j.bulcan.2024.11.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Care quality assessment emerged in the late 1990s, leading to the integration of users into healthcare systems. To integrate patient perceptions, resources such as PROs (Patient Reported Outcomes), PROMs (Patient-Reported Outcome Measures), satisfaction and patient experts or partners have been developed. PREMs (Patient-Reported Experience Measures) have recently emerged, bringing a fresh perspective to improving quality and care pathways, but are still little-known. The aim of this study is to carry out a critical analysis of available publications on tools for evaluating the patient's experience of the care pathway for a chronic disease, with a focus on oncology, and to identify common themes. A literature search was carried out from June 2023 to March 2024. It focused on the concepts of quality of life, satisfaction and patient experience. Seventy-nine articles related to patient experience were identified, including 44 in oncology and 35 outside oncology. The measures analyzed include experience questions as well as satisfaction questions and/or PROMs measures. Nevertheless, they address concordant domains that are important to the patient. This study has shown a consistent development of PROMs and patient satisfaction. PROMs and patient experience are still new. Their use remains focused on targeted stages of care, and there is a lack of tools for assessing the patient's care pathway more globally.</p>","PeriodicalId":93917,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin du cancer","volume":" ","pages":"178-188"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Evaluating patient experience in oncology and chronic diseases: Critical analysis of available tools (PROMs, PREMs, Satisfaction)].\",\"authors\":\"Loubna Diouri, Coralie Barbe, Stéphane Vignot\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bulcan.2024.11.010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Care quality assessment emerged in the late 1990s, leading to the integration of users into healthcare systems. To integrate patient perceptions, resources such as PROs (Patient Reported Outcomes), PROMs (Patient-Reported Outcome Measures), satisfaction and patient experts or partners have been developed. PREMs (Patient-Reported Experience Measures) have recently emerged, bringing a fresh perspective to improving quality and care pathways, but are still little-known. The aim of this study is to carry out a critical analysis of available publications on tools for evaluating the patient's experience of the care pathway for a chronic disease, with a focus on oncology, and to identify common themes. A literature search was carried out from June 2023 to March 2024. It focused on the concepts of quality of life, satisfaction and patient experience. Seventy-nine articles related to patient experience were identified, including 44 in oncology and 35 outside oncology. The measures analyzed include experience questions as well as satisfaction questions and/or PROMs measures. Nevertheless, they address concordant domains that are important to the patient. This study has shown a consistent development of PROMs and patient satisfaction. PROMs and patient experience are still new. Their use remains focused on targeted stages of care, and there is a lack of tools for assessing the patient's care pathway more globally.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93917,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin du cancer\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"178-188\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin du cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bulcan.2024.11.010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin du cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bulcan.2024.11.010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
[Evaluating patient experience in oncology and chronic diseases: Critical analysis of available tools (PROMs, PREMs, Satisfaction)].
Care quality assessment emerged in the late 1990s, leading to the integration of users into healthcare systems. To integrate patient perceptions, resources such as PROs (Patient Reported Outcomes), PROMs (Patient-Reported Outcome Measures), satisfaction and patient experts or partners have been developed. PREMs (Patient-Reported Experience Measures) have recently emerged, bringing a fresh perspective to improving quality and care pathways, but are still little-known. The aim of this study is to carry out a critical analysis of available publications on tools for evaluating the patient's experience of the care pathway for a chronic disease, with a focus on oncology, and to identify common themes. A literature search was carried out from June 2023 to March 2024. It focused on the concepts of quality of life, satisfaction and patient experience. Seventy-nine articles related to patient experience were identified, including 44 in oncology and 35 outside oncology. The measures analyzed include experience questions as well as satisfaction questions and/or PROMs measures. Nevertheless, they address concordant domains that are important to the patient. This study has shown a consistent development of PROMs and patient satisfaction. PROMs and patient experience are still new. Their use remains focused on targeted stages of care, and there is a lack of tools for assessing the patient's care pathway more globally.