Development of an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) Patient‐Reported Experience Measure (PREM)
A patient‐led consensus work and ‘think aloud’ study for a quality improvement programme
Bibliographic Data
BACKGROUND: Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) are key in improving healthcare quality, but no PREM exists for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This study aimed to co-produce a PREM with IBD service users for IBD service evaluation and quality improvement programme. METHODS: A pool of 75 items was drawn from published survey instruments covering interactions with services and aspects of living with IBD. In Stage 1, during two workshops, eight expert service users reduced candidate items through a ranked-choice voting exercise and suggested further items. During Stage 2, 18 previously uninvolved people with IBD assessed the face and content validity of the candidate items in 'Think Aloud' interviews. During two final workshops (Stage 3), the expert service users removed, modified and added items based on the interview findings to produce a final version of the PREM. RESULTS: Stage 1 generated a draft working PREM mapped to the following four domains: Patient-Centred Care; Quality; Accessibility; Communication and Involvement. The PREM included a set of nine items created by the expert group which shifted the emphasis from 'self-management' to 'living with IBD'. Stage 2 interviews showed that comprehension of the PREM was very good, although there were concerns about the wording, IBD-relevance and ambiguity of some items. During the final two workshops in Stage 3, the expert service users removed 7 items, modified 15 items and added seven new ones based on the interview findings, resulting in a 38-item PREM. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates how extensive service user involvement can inform PREM development. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients were involved as active members of the research team and as research participants to co-produce and validate a PREM for IBD services. In Stage 1, eight expert service users ('the expert group') reduced candidate items for the PREM through a voting exercise and suggested new items. During Stage 2, 18 previously uninvolved people with IBD (the 'think aloud' participants) assessed the validity of the candidate items in 'Think Aloud' interviews as research participants. In Stage 3, the expert group removed, changed and added items based on the interview findings to produce a final version of the 38-item PREM. This study shows how service user involvement can meaningfully inform PREM development
Business · Comprehension · Health care · Medical education · Patient experience · Think aloud protocol · Usability · Computer Science · Medicine · Mental Health and Patient Involvement · Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare · Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare · Psychology
Validation of a Patient‐Created, Patient‐Reported Experience Measure for Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the United Kingdom
Development of an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) Patient‐Reported Experience Measure (PREM)
Development of the First Patient‐Reported Experience Measure (PREM) for Hearing Loss in Audiology Care—My Hearing PREM
Collecting data on patient experience is not enough
What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies
Development of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM)
A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems
The behaviour change wheel
Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research
A Critical Examination of the Concepts of Face Validity
Patient involvement in the development of patient‐reported outcome measures
Asking what matters
Development of an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) Patient‐Reported Experience Measure (PREM)
The rating form of IBD patient concerns
The standard problem
Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research
Common-Sense and Scientific Interpretation of Human Action
Themes, Theories, and Models
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2023 - 2026 (4) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |