Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are measures of patients’ perceptions of care they receive. PREMs are critical in developing and evaluating programmes that aim to improve patient healthcare experiences and quality of care (QoC) according to patient-defined needs. This review aims to map key domains of PREMs across distinct healthcare technical areas and life stages from globally available literature.

A scoping review adapting Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and Joanna Briggs Institute’s guidelines for the conduct of scoping reviews.

Google Scholar, PubMed, WHO, US Academy of Medicine and USAID Momentum.

PREMs literature from electronic repositories of grey and peer-reviewed publications, published in English historically up to September 2023.

Two lead reviewers with support from the technical working group co-created a review framework of healthcare technical areas, life stages and PREMs domains. We screened eligible articles, prioritising reviews except for technical areas with no reviews, where we then selected individual studies. We charted, analysed and synthesised data from 52 eligible articles.

PREMs literature has recently increased, especially in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), although studies in high-income countries (HICs) dominate in proportion (n=38; 73.1%). Out of 52 eligible articles, technical areas with most publications were sexual and reproductive health (n=21; 40.4%) and general outpatient care (n=11; 21.2%). Studies in adulthood (n=24; 46.2%) and from pregnancy and birth to postnatal (n=16; 30.8%) were most represented. PREMs studies reported mostly on communication and rapport (n=33; 63.5%) and respect and dignity (n=42; 80.8%) domains. Nearly a quarter (n=12; 23.1%) of the articles included only validated tools; the rest included a combination of validated and unvalidated measures. Of the tools relating to life stages of babies, younger children and older adults, the majority (n=17; 94.4%) included patient proxies.

PREMs, as an important component of QoC measurement, are increasing across several healthcare technical areas and life stages with commonalities and notable distinctions in measurement domains and tools. Evidence on PREMs largely comes from HICs. Evidence on critical, yet sometimes overlooked domains, highlights key QoC implementation gaps. The adaptation and utilisation of PREMs in programmes, especially in LMICs and under-represented technical areas, present opportunities to close the QoC disparities in those settings. Strategic, concerted efforts towards the harmonisation of PREMs tools across multiple life course stages and technical areas are critically needed in high-level quality improvement efforts.

The aim of this study was to prioritise a set of indicators to measure World Health Organization (WHO) quality-of-care standards for small and/or sick newborns (SSNB) in health facilities. The hypothesis is that monitoring prioritised indicators can support accountability mechanisms, assess and drive progress, and compare performance in quality-of-care (QoC) at subnational levels.

Prospective, iterative, deductive, stepwise process to prioritise a list of QoC indicators organised around the WHO Standards for improving the QoC for small and sick newborns in health facilities. A technical working group (TWG) used an iterative four-step deductive process: (1) articulation of conceptual framework and method for indicator development; (2) comprehensive review of existing global SSNB-relevant indicators; (3) development of indicator selection criteria; and (4) selection of indicators through consultations with a wide range of stakeholders at country, regional and global levels.

The indicators are prioritised for inpatient newborn care (typically called level 2 and 3 care) in high mortality/morbidity settings, where most preventable poor neonatal outcomes occur.

The TWG included 24 technical experts and leaders in SSNB QoC programming selected by WHO. Global perspectives were synthesised from an online survey of 172 respondents who represented different countries and levels of the health system, and a wide range of perspectives, including ministries of health, research institutions, technical and implementing partners, health workers and independent experts.

The 30 prioritised SSNB QoC indicators include 27 with metadata and 3 requiring further development; together, they cover all eight standard domains of the WHO quality framework. Among the established indicators, 10 were adopted from existing indicators and 17 adapted. The list contains a balance of indicators measuring inputs (n=6), processes (n=12) and outcome/impact (n=9).

The prioritised SSNB QoC indicators can be used at health facility, subnational and national levels, depending on the maturity of a country’s health information system. Their use in implementation, research and evaluation across diverse contexts has the potential to help drive action to improve quality of SSNB care. WHO and others could use this list for further prioritisation of a core set.