ArticleBMC psychiatry2025
Therapists' and patients' experiences with electronic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) before and during treatment in community mental health services: a qualitative study in Norway.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe implementation of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in community mental healthcare is a complex experience for both therapists and patients. Barriers need to be identified and overcome. The aims of this study were to examine how therapists and patients experienced the implementation of digital PROMs and PREMs in mental healthcare, and to identify those factors that promote positive experiences with mental health treatment supported by PROMs and PREMs.
methodsIn this descriptive qualitative study, we conducted focus group interviews with 19 therapists and individual interviews with six patients who had received low-intensity cognitive behavioural therapy interventions. All informants were interviewed about their experiences following the implementation of self-reported electronic measures in an outpatient treatment facility. The central question posed to all informants concerned their experience with electronic questionnaires. The interviews were analysed with a thematic approach using systematic text condensation.
resultsBoth therapists and patients experienced initial barriers in the form of a lack of information and guidance about answering questionnaires. Both the therapists and patients experienced improved insight into symptoms and challenges. This enhanced awareness led to the patient being more actively involved in the formulation of objectives in the treatment process. Patients reported that the implementation of PROMs and PREMs led to better informed therapists who listened more actively and asked relevant questions about adherence and current struggles in daily life.
conclusionOverall, patients with mental health problems need practical guidance on how to complete self-report questionnaires. By providing their own feedback, patients' self-awareness of their symptoms and challenges was strengthened, thereby facilitating discussions on how to best align treatment goals to treatment needs. Several patients highlighted the importance for PREMs of the therapists' attitudes and skills. The findings of this qualitative study suggest that both PROMs and PREMs can be implemented successfully in routine mental healthcare when care is taken to identify and overcome barriers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.