Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
What is measured matters: A scoping review of analysis methods used for qualitative patient reported experience measure data.
Engstrom, Teyl; Shteiman, Max; Kelly, Kim; Sullivan, Clair; Pole, Jason D.
Afiliação
  • Engstrom T; Queensland Digital Health Centre, Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia. Electronic address: t.engstrom@uq.edu.au.
  • Shteiman M; The University of Queensland-Ochsner Clinical School, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
  • Kelly K; Qualitative Research Center of Excellence, IQVIA, Tucson, AZ, USA.
  • Sullivan C; Queensland Digital Health Centre, Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia; Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia.
  • Pole JD; Queensland Digital Health Centre, Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia; The University of Toronto, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Int J Med Inform ; 190: 105559, 2024 Oct.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39032453
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

Hospitals are increasingly turning to patients for valuable feedback regarding their care experience. A common method to collect this information is patient reported experience measures (PREMs) surveys. Health care workers report qualitative PREMs as more interesting, relevant, and informative than quantitative survey responses. However, a major barrier to utilising qualitative PREMs data to drive quality improvements is a lack of resources to analyse the data. This scoping review aimed to review the methods used to analyse qualitative PREMs survey data from routine hospital care.

METHODS:

We utilised the JBI scoping review methodology, and searched four databases for articles from 2013 to 2023 which analysed qualitative PREMs survey data from routine care in hospitals. Study characteristics were extracted, as well as the analysis method - specifically, whether the study used traditional manual analysis methods in which the researcher reads the text and categorise the data, or automated methods utilising computers and algorithms to read and categorise the data.

RESULTS:

From 960 unique articles, 123 went through full-text review and 54 were deemed eligible. 75.9 % used only manual content analysis methods to analyse the qualitative responses, 16.7 % of studies used a combination of manual and automated methods, and only 7.4 % used exclusively automated methods. Automated methods were used in 27.5 % of studies published 2019-2023, compared to 14.3 % of studies published 2013-2018. All bar one study using automated methods focused on investigating the validity of the automated methodology or used it to complement manual content analysis.

CONCLUSION:

The studies included in this review show a transition from traditional time-consuming manual analyses to computerised methods enabling analysis at a larger scale. As the volume of PREMs data collected grows, efficient and effective ways to analyse qualitative PREMs data at scale are required to enable health services to capture the patient voice and drive consumer-centred improvements in care.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article