Comprehensive Review of Patient-Reported Experience Measures in Cancer Care

Importance of Patient-Centered Care in Oncology

Patient-centered care (PCC) is a healthcare approach that prioritizes the preferences, needs, and values of patients in clinical decision-making. As the global cancer incidence escalates, with approximately 20 million new cases reported in 2022 and projections indicating a rise to over 35 million by 2050 (Han et al., 2024), the necessity for PCC in oncology has never been more critical. Traditional medical models predominantly focus on clinical outcomes, often neglecting the subjective experiences of patients, which can lead to dissatisfaction and poorer health outcomes (Mielke et al., 2024).

The integration of PREMs into oncology allows for a more nuanced understanding of the patient experience. These measures capture feedback on aspects such as communication, emotional support, and the overall care process, providing invaluable insights that can shape service delivery and enhance patient satisfaction (Howard et al., 2024). By prioritizing the patient voice, healthcare providers can foster a more supportive environment that not only addresses clinical needs but also emotional and psychological well-being.

Key Components of Patient-Reported Experience Measures

PREMs are defined as standardized tools that enable patients to report their experiences directly, without external interpretation. These measures encompass various dimensions of care, including:

1. Respect for Patients: Evaluating how well healthcare providers honor patient preferences and values (Ahmed et al., 2014).
2. Coordination and Integration of Services: Assessing the seamlessness of care transitions and communication among providers (Bull et al., 2019).
3. Effective Communication: Understanding how well information is conveyed to patients, including health education (Christalle et al., 2022).
4. Emotional Support: Capturing the level of emotional and psychological support provided (Alessy et al., 2019).
5. Accessibility of Services: Evaluating the ease with which patients can access care (Reid et al., 2023).

These components are crucial for understanding patient experiences and enhancing the overall quality of care provided in oncology settings.

Current Tools and Methodologies in Cancer Patient Assessment

A variety of assessment tools have been developed to evaluate PREMs in cancer patients. A scoping review of available literature identified 11 distinct PREM instruments, each with unique methodologies and applications (Shao et al., 2025). Some notable tools include:

• National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (NCPES): A comprehensive tool used in the UK that covers multiple aspects of patient experience, including care quality and support services (Karabatić et al., 2022).
• Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS): This tool focuses on patient satisfaction and experience in various healthcare settings (Roth et al., 2020).
• Patient-Reported Experience Measure for Cancer (PREM-C): Developed specifically for cancer patients, it evaluates patient-centered care across multiple dimensions (Reid et al., 2023).

Table 1: Overview of Patient-Reported Experience Measures in Cancer Care

Challenges and Future Directions in Patient-Reported Experience Research

Despite the growth and potential of PREMs, several challenges persist. The lack of standardized assessment tools tailored specifically for cancer patients remains a significant barrier (Shao et al., 2025). While many existing tools can be adapted for cancer care, their validation in oncology contexts is often insufficient. Additionally, the comprehensive implementation of PREMs requires robust training for healthcare providers to ensure they can effectively interpret and act on patient feedback (Verma & Desai, 2024).

Future Directions

1. Development of Specific Tools: There is a pressing need for high-quality, cancer-specific PREMs that accurately capture the unique experiences of cancer patients (Taibi et al., 2023).
2. Enhanced Data Collection: Future studies should focus on integrating PREMs into clinical workflows to facilitate real-time feedback and improve care delivery (Mielke et al., 2024).
3. Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Engaging multiple stakeholders, including patients, healthcare providers, and policymakers, is essential for advancing PREM research and implementation (Wild et al., 2024).
4. Cultural Adaptation: Tools must be culturally sensitive and adaptable to various patient populations to ensure relevance and effectiveness across diverse settings (Yu et al., 2018).

Enhancing Cancer Treatment through Patient Feedback Mechanisms

Incorporating patient feedback into clinical practice can significantly enhance treatment pathways and patient outcomes. PREMs enable healthcare providers to identify areas needing improvement, allowing for targeted interventions that can enhance the quality of care (Brookes & Baker, 2022). For instance, patient feedback on communication can help refine educational materials and enhance provider-patient interactions, leading to greater satisfaction and adherence to treatment plans.

Moreover, utilizing PREMs as part of quality improvement initiatives can lead to systematic changes in oncology practices, ultimately improving clinical outcomes and patient survival rates (Alessy et al., 2019). This feedback loop is vital for fostering a culture of continuous improvement within cancer care settings.

Conclusion

Patient-Reported Experience Measures represent a critical advancement in oncology, enabling a deeper understanding of patient experiences and informing care practices. While significant strides have been made in developing and implementing these measures, ongoing research is essential to refine assessment tools and integrate patient feedback effectively into clinical practice. By prioritizing patient-centered care, the oncology community can enhance treatment outcomes, improve patient satisfaction, and ultimately provide a higher standard of care for those facing cancer.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What are Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs)?

PREMs are standardized tools that allow patients to report their healthcare experiences directly, capturing various aspects of care such as communication, emotional support, and coordination of services.

Why are PREMs important in cancer care?

PREMs provide critical insights into patient experiences, enabling healthcare providers to identify areas for improvement and enhance patient-centered care, which is associated with better treatment outcomes and patient satisfaction.

What challenges exist in implementing PREMs?

Challenges include the lack of standardized, cancer-specific assessment tools, insufficient training for healthcare providers, and the need for cultural adaptation of measures to suit diverse patient populations.

How can patient feedback enhance cancer treatment?

Patient feedback can inform targeted interventions, improve communication strategies, and foster a culture of continuous improvement in oncology practices, leading to better clinical outcomes and enhanced patient satisfaction.

What are the future directions for PREM research?

Future directions include developing specific assessment tools for cancer patients, enhancing data collection methods, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, and ensuring cultural sensitivity in tool adaptation.

References

1. Ahmed, F., Burt, J., & Roland, M. (2014). Measuring patient experience: concepts and methods. Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 7(3), 235-241
2. Alessy, S., Davies, E., Rawlinson, J., Baker, M., & Lüchtenborg, M. (2019). How representative are colorectal, lung, breast and prostate cancer patients responding to the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) of the cancer registry population in England? A population-based case control study. BMJ Open, 9(12), e034344
3. Arditi, C., Eicher, M., Junod, J., & Peytremann-Bridevaux, I. (2023). Socio-demographic and health-related determinants of patients’ overall rating and experiences of cancer care. BMC Cancer, 23, 394. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-11445-6
4. Brookes, G., & Baker, P. (2022). Cancer services patient experience in England: quantitative and qualitative analyses of the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care
5. Bull, C., Byrnes, J., Hettiarachchi, R., & Downes, M. (2019). A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient-reported experience measures. Health Services Research, 54(5), 1023-1035
6. Cha, E., Mathis, N. J., Joshi, H., Sharma, S., Zinovoy, M., Ru, M., Cahlon, O., Gillespie, E. F., & Marshall, D. C. (2022). Bias in patient experience scores in radiation oncology: a multicenter retrospective analysis. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 19(4), 542-551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2022.01.013
7. Christalle, E., Zeh, S., Hahlweg, P., Kriston, L., Harter, M., Zill, J., & Scholl, I. (2022). Development and content validity of the Experienced Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (EPAT)-A best practice example for generating patient-reported measures from qualitative data. Health Expectations, 25, 129-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2022.01.013
8. Fauer, A., Choi, S. W., Wallner, L. P., Davis, M. A., & Friese, C. R. (2021). Understanding quality and equity: patient experiences with care in older adults diagnosed with hematologic malignancies. Cancer Causes & Control, 32(4), 379-389
9. Fernstrom, K. M., Shippee, N. D., Jones, A. L., & Britt, H. R. (2016). Development and validation of a new patient experience tool in patients with serious illness. BMC Palliative Care, 15, 69
10. Gomez-Cano, M., Lyratzopoulos, G., Campbell, J. L., & Elliott, M. A. (2022). The underlying structure of the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey: factor analysis to support survey reporting and design. Cancer Medicine, 11(1), 3-20
11. Han, B., Zheng, R., Zeng, H., Wang, S., Sun, K., Chen, R., Li, L., Wei, W., & He, J. (2024). Cancer incidence and mortality in China, 2022. Journal of National Cancer Center, 2024, S2667005424000061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jncc.2024.01.006
12. Karabatić, S., Šajnić, A., Pleština, S., Jakopović, M., & Kurtović, B. (2022). Croatian national cancer patient Experience Survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), 228285. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148285
13. Mielke, K., Frerichs, W., Cöllen, K., Lindig, A., & Härter, M. (2024). Perspective on patient-centered communication: a focus group study investigating the experiences and needs of nursing professionals. BMC Nursing, 23, 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02487-7
14. Reid, C., Jones, L., Janda, M., Langbecker, D., Stone, L., Laing, B., & McCarthy, A. (2023). Development and testing of a patient-reported experience measure for cancer: a cross-sectional survey. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2023, 15767
15. Roth, L., Tirodkar, M., Friedberg, M. S., Smith-McLallen, A., & Scholle, S. H. (2020). Assessing cancer patient experience of care in outpatient oncology practices in the United States. Medical Care, 58(7), 744-748
16. Shao, Q., Zhang, W., Lang, H., Wang, Y., Tang, H., Du, J., Liang, Y., Jing, P., Gu, Z., Yan, X., & Shang, L. (2025). Development and application of patient-reported experience measures for cancer patients: a scoping review. International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances, 2666-142X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2025.100327
17. Taibi, A., Sgarbura, O., Villeneuve, L., Eveno, C., Pocard, M., Bakrin, N., Economos, G., Odin, C., Durand Fontanier, S., Bardet, S. M., Goere, D., Brigand, C., Glehen, O., & Hübner, M. (2023). Developing a core set of patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported experience measures for peritoneal surface malignancies (COMETE). British Journal of Surgery, 110(9), 1087-1091
18. Verma, M., & Desai, A. P. (2024). What explains worse patient experience in London? Evidence from secondary analysis of the cancer patient experience survey. Clinical Liver Disease (Hoboken), 23(1), e0222
19. Wild, H. M., Busby, A., Mackintosh, L., & Wellsted, D. (2024). Patient-reported experience measures to evaluate and improve the quality of care in nephrology. Seminars in Nephrology, 44(3-4), 151551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semnephrol.2024.151551
20. Yu, T.-H., Chung, K.-P., Tung, Y.-C., & Tsai, H.-Y. (2018). Insight into patients’ experiences of cancer care in Taiwan: an instrument translation and cross-cultural adaptation study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(8), 1772. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081772
21. Zhu, L., Wang, T., Wu, J., Zhai, X., Wu, Q., Deng, H., Qin, C., Tian, L., & Zhou, Q. (2023). Updated interpretation of the NCCN clinical practice guidelines (Version 3. 2023) for non-small cell lung cancer. Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi, 26(6), 407415