Surgical patient satisfaction in Hong Kong: Validation of a new instrument

A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient-reported experience measures

OBJECTIVES

To identify patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), assess their validity and reliability, and assess any bias in the study design of PREM validity and reliability testing.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

Articles reporting on PREM development and testing sourced from MEDLINE, CINAHL and Scopus databases up to March 13, 2018.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Critical appraisal of PREM study design was undertaken using the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS). Critical appraisal of PREM validity and reliability was undertaken using a revised version of the COSMIN checklist.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Eighty-eight PREMs were identified, spanning across four main health care contexts. PREM validity and reliability was supported by appropriate study designs. Internal consistency (n = 58, 65.2 percent), structural validity (n = 49, 55.1 percent), and content validity (n = 34, 38.2 percent) were the most frequently reported validity and reliability tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Careful consideration should be given when selecting PREMs, particularly as seven of the 10 validity and reliability criteria were not undertaken in ≥50 percent of the PREMs. Testing PREM responsiveness should be prioritized for the application of PREMs where the end user is measuring change over time. Assessing measurement error/agreement of PREMs is important to understand the clinical relevancy of PREM scores used in a health care evaluation capacity.