Skip to main content
Browse Subject Areas

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

The implementation, use and impact of patient reported outcome measures in value-based healthcare programmes: A scoping review

  • Mayara Silveira Bianchim,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation School of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom

  • Ellie Crane,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation School of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom

  • Anwen Jones,

    Roles Validation

    Affiliation School of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom

  • Barbara Neukirchinger,

    Roles Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation School of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom

  • Gareth Roberts,

    Roles Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Newport, United Kingdom

  • Leah Mclaughlin,

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation School of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom

  • Jane Noyes

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation School of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom



Value-Based Healthcare (VBHC) focuses on the value of patient outcomes and is achieved by ensuring resources already available are managed to realise the best possible individual and population health outcomes. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) measure the impact of illnesses from the patient perspective. We conducted a scoping review to understand how PROMs were implemented and used, and their impact in the context of VBHC.


Arksey and O’Malley’s overarching framework supplemented by principles from mixed-methods Framework Synthesis were used. CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Google Scholar and reference lists were searched. An a priori data extraction framework was created using the review question and objectives as key domains against which to extract data. Mixed-methods data were organised, integrated and preserved in original format and reported for each domain.


Forty-three studies were included with 60,200 participants. Few studies reported a well-developed programme theory and we found little robust evidence of effect. PROMs were universally considered to have the potential to increase patient satisfaction with treatment and services, enhance patient awareness of symptoms and self-management, and improve health outcomes such as quality of life and global health status. Evidence is currently limited on how PROMs work and how best to optimally implement PROMs to achieve the target outcome. Implementation challenges commonly prevented the realisation of optimal outcomes and patients generally needed better and clearer communication about why PROMs were being given and how they could optimally be used to support their own self-management.


PROMSs have yet to demonstrate their full potential in a VBHC context. Optimal PROMs implementation is poorly understood by clinicians and patients. Future studies should explore different models of PROM implementation and use within VBHC programmes to understand what works best and why for each specific context, condition, and population.


Value-Based Healthcare (VBHC) is a delivery model with the overarching goal of maximising value for patients and healthcare providers [1]. VBHC is achieved through the equitable, sustainable, and efficient use of resources to achieve better outcomes for every patient [1,2]. With growing demand being placed on finite health resources, the concept of VBHC has become increasingly important [24].

VBHC models are focused on patient-centred care, using outcomes that matter most to patients rather than relying solely on clinical measures [5,6]. Such metrics include mental and social functioning, health-related quality of life, disease symptoms and patient views on their health. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are a set of questions that seek to comprehensively capture these important metrics and are commonly used in research contexts [7]. PROMs are implemented within a VBHC setting with the aim of enabling healthcare providers to understand what matters most to patients, to better monitor, detect and if necessary, act-upon patient symptoms, and to facilitate shared patient-clinician decision making [7]. From the patient perspective, the aim of PROMs is to improve quality of care and health outcomes, improve patient understanding of their health, and promote active patient engagement with their own self-care and management [7].

PROMs have been established in healthcare for over a decade and are often an essential component in the delivery of person-centred care. However, there is a dearth of evidence on how to implement and use PROMs within a VBHC setting to maximise value for patients and health providers. Additionally, whether PROMs are effective in improving patient and health systems outcomes is also unclear. Addressing these questions is essential to help inform current and future PROMs interventions within a VBHC setting. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to identify and describe studies on the implementation, use and effectiveness of PROMs as part of a VBHC programme or a similar routine practice context.

Material and methods

The methodology was guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s [8] five stage framework for scoping reviews:

  • Stage 1: identifying the research question (i.e., defining the scope and review protocol)
  • Stage 2: identifying relevant studies
  • Stage 3: study selection
  • Stage 4: charting the data
  • Stage 5: collating, summarizing, and reporting the results

To manage and interpret a wide range of study designs, we incorporated principles of mixed-methods framework synthesis to extract, map, chart, categorise and aggregate study findings [9]. An a priori protocol was developed. In line with scoping review methodology, the level of synthesis was low with the output largely descriptive.

Identifying the research question

A Setting, Perspective, Intervention/Phenomenon of Interest, Comparator, Evaluation (SPICE) framework was followed to structure the research question, objectives, and subsequent search strategy [10], as follows:

Setting: High income countries with similar health systems to the UK NHS. Primarily hospital based VBHC programmes that used PROMS.

Perspectives: Patients, carers, implementers, service providers, healthcare professionals, other key stakeholders. Any patient group or condition. In addition, we specifically looked at four diverse tracer services in greater depth:

  • A surgical intervention (cataract surgery),
  • A chronic disease with a large cohort of young adults (epilepsy),
  • A chronic disease affecting a predominantly elderly and sometimes frail cohort (Parkinson’s disease), and
  • A long-term chronic condition that is most common in older people but can affect people at any age (heart failure).

Intervention/Phenomena of interest

  1. What PROMs are used and what evidence is there that PROMs work?
  2. How are PROMs used by patients, professionals, carers, the health service, and stakeholders?
  3. How are PROMs intended to work to bring about specific outcomes?
  4. How are PROMS implemented in four specific tracer conditions (cataract surgery, epilepsy, heart failure, Parkinson’s disease)?
  5. What are the factors that create barriers and facilitators to PROMs implementation?
  6. What (if any) are the unintended consequences of PROMs?
  7. What are the experiences of patients and carers in using PROMs?
  8. Are there differences in experiences or demographics across different services?
  9. How are PROMs used with people (including family members and carers) with multiple co-morbid conditions?
  10. Do PROMs raise any equity issues?
  11. Are PROMs sustainable?
  12. How translatable is this evidence?
  13. What is the economic cost of developing or implementing PROMs programmes?

Comparison: Differences in experiences, perspectives and outcomes between groups and different ages, conditions, groups, contexts, ethnicity etc.

Evaluation: Scoping review to aggregate, describe and understand the evidence.

Identifying relevant studies

The search protocol was developed and refined with the help of an expert librarian using a rigorous iterative process. Pilot searches were conducted to refine the search terms and assess the feasibility of the initial criteria. A systematic search for published studies was carried out in August to November 2022. The primary searches were conducted in CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science, and included relevant studies found via key word searches on Google Scholar. We also searched the VHBC study repository at a local health organisation. In addition, a non-comprehensive 3-word search targeting specific conditions was performed independently by two authors (MSB, EC), and each author used two different databases (PubMed and Google Scholar). The reference lists of all the identified systematic reviews were screened, with all potentially eligible studies subsequently assessed independently by two authors (MSB, EC) against the inclusion criteria.

The search was not designed to be exhaustive and was conducted iteratively in accordance with scoping review guidance [11]. A pilot search was performed to refine the Medical Subject Headlines (MeSH) terms and Boolean phrasing with the help of an experience librarian. The final search terms were inserted as keywords into all 9 databases were:

PROMS AND Patient Reported Outcome Measures AND VBHC AND Value Based Health Care AND Implementation Evaluation

Study selection

We imported all searches to Mendeley (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands) for screening. Titles and abstracts of identified articles were screened by two people (EW, BC) independently to determine eligibility for inclusion. We included studies investigating the implementation, use, and impact of PROMs applied within the context of VBHC (i.e., the use of PROMs in healthcare to focus on outcomes that are important for patients, and/or used to increase value for patients and healthcare providers) (Table 1).

Full texts were retrieved and assessed independently by two authors (EW, MSB, BN, EC) against the eligibility criteria. Papers not meeting the inclusion criteria were excluded and the reasons for exclusion noted. Any disagreement between screeners was resolved by a third person until a consensus was reached.

Charting the data

All papers were uploaded as PDF files and managed in Mendeley. A data extraction form which served as the a priori framework was developed using the phenomena of interest as key headings.

Collating, summarizing, and reporting the results

An a priori data extraction framework was created using the review question and objectives as key domains against which to extract data. Using a process of familiarisation, studies were first marked up with notes and memos and key text of interest highlighted and then extracted into the a priori framework on an excel spreadsheet (S1 Table). Supplementary information for each study was obtained where available and when necessary primary study authors were consulted to obtain or confirm data. Having extracted all data of interest into the framework, mapping and charting was undertaken to visualise and interpret each element of interest. PROMs were first viewed as a cross-disciplinary general intervention. Mixed-methods data were organised, integrated and preserved in original format and reported for each domain in the a priori framework that corresponded to the review question and objectives. Then evidence was sought and configured on PROMs specifically for the four tracer conditions. Through this process we developed descriptive level findings and explanations. Findings were shared and discussed with a wider group of researchers and discussed with key stakeholders. The review was reported using the relevant domains of the Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (S2 Table) [12].

Quality assessment

All included studies were independently appraised by two reviewers (AJ, BN, EC, GR, JN, LM, MSB) using the Quality Assessment for Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool [13]. The tool was designed to appraise mixed or multi-methods studies in complex systematic reviews in health services research. The QuADS tool [12] is reported to demonstrate strong inter-rater reliability (k = 0.66), and substantial content validity, and is composed of 13 domains [12]. Two reviewers (EC & MSB) piloted the tool on five studies encompassing different designs prior to assessment.

The checklist usually includes a final score for quality assessment, which we did not calculate. This is because total quality scores are considered unhelpful as the domains assessed do not impact equally on the quality of the study. What is more important is the identification of methodological limitations in primary studies and how these limitations may impact on the interpretation of findings [14]. We used the checklist to assess the level of methodological concerns rather than calculate a total quality numeric score. All studies were appraised according to the level of methodological concern: ‘no/minor’, ‘moderate’, ‘serious’, or ‘very serious’ concerns. Studies were not excluded based on their methodological limitations, but findings from studies with serious and very serious methodological concerns were interpreted with caution. All disagreements were discussed and resolved, and a third review author was consulted when necessary. All assessments were transparently recorded using Microsoft Excel.

Stakeholder engagement

Stakeholders with experience using PROMs as health care professionals or working with relevant health conditions, staff working in relevant third sector organisations and established stakeholder and patient advocacy groups were invited to participate in engagement sessions (i.e., St. David’s Hospice Care, British Heart Foundation, Digital Wales, Epilepsy Action, Digital Communities Wales, Parkinson’s UK Cymry, Race Equality First, Aneurin Bevan Community Health Council and VBHC Patient Reference Group). Engagement sessions with stakeholders were planned strategically and the discussions were tailored for each group according to their background and lived experience. Stakeholder input was primarily used to provide context and inform the interpretation of findings and help identify gaps in evidence. For example, stakeholder engagement helped with the interpretation of facilitation and barriers factors for PROM implementation, disease-specific aspects of PROMs and digital literary and issues related to equality, inclusion and diversity.


Forty-three studies were included in total. Among these, 39 studies reported a total of 60,200 participants aged between 18 to 103 years; and 31 studies reported that 56.8% of participants were female (n = 18,845) (Fig 1 and S3 Table). Included studies investigated various PROMs interventions, across 13 countries, and across a wide range of conditions (Table 2). Twenty-four studies specified investigating the use of PROMs specifically in a VBHC program [1538], while the other 19 studies [3956], investigated aspects of PROMs implementation in routine practice that were relevant to our research questions (language barriers, multiple comorbidities, tracer conditions etc.).

Table 2. Patient Reported Outcome Measures [PROMs] per condition and response rates [n = 39 studies].

Methodological strengths and limitations of included studies

The majority of included studies were judged to have no or minor methodological concerns 79% (n = 33), followed by 14% (n = 6) moderate methodological concerns and 7% (n = 3) serious methodological concerns. No study was judged to have very serious methodological concerns (S4 Table). For most studies, methodological concerns were due to a lack of reporting rather than methodological limitations. For example, the lack of recruitment information was the second most common limitation encountered. The main limitation encountered was the absence of stakeholder involvement in research design or conduct. Data collection and analysis were mostly well designed and conducted across the studies.

Factors that created barriers and facilitators to optimal implementation

Thirty-one studies described factors that created barriers and facilitators to PROMs implementation. Many of the factors described were bi-directional, acting as either facilitators or barriers depending on the context and whether the factor was present or not. We identified four groups of factors in the implementation of PROMs (Table 3). These groups included digital and technology factors, factors associated with patients and carers, factors associated with healthcare staff and stakeholders, and structural & organisational factors.

Table 3. Factors that created barriers and facilitators at different stages of PROMs implementation.

Programme theory

We have identified two main programme theories explaining the mechanisms by which PROMs were thought to improve patient outcomes. These theories are not mutually exclusive, and analysis of included studies suggested multiple mechanistic pathways associated with PROM interventions.

Theory 1: PROMs promote proactive communication and positive health behaviours in patients.

One possible mechanism is that by completing PROMs patients were prompted to reflect on their symptom, thereby improving awareness of their health and wellbeing. PROMs helped to validate patients’ concerns and empowered them to raise these issues with clinicians, thus improving patient-clinician communication. Additionally, enhanced patient awareness regarding their own health potentially increased their engagement in positive health-related behaviours [15,17,21,23,2931,33]. We found evidence that PROMs promoted self-reflection [18,24,46,49], helped patients to identify their needs and priorities [18,34,46,49], and promoted more active engagement from patients in managing their own health [18,34,46,50,55].

Theory 2: PROMs increase clinician awareness of patient symptoms.

PROMs provided regular feedback to clinicians highlighting undetected issues or symptoms, and/or changes in symptoms. Improved symptom detection subsequently enhanced the quality of appointments and benefited patient health outcomes [38,42,49]. Better symptom awareness and detection promoted quicker treatment and tailoring of care according to the needs of patients [13,15,17,19,29,37]. Clinicians reported that PROMs enabled them to prioritise topics for discussion during appointments, which resulted in better shared decision-making [18,37,38,42,46,49,50,52].

Effectiveness of PROMs interventions

Health outcomes.

Two studies showed statistically significant improvements in health outcomes in cancer patients as a result of a VBHC PROM intervention [18,42]. In these studies, PROMs data was collected regularly and used to automatically alert the healthcare team when a predefined threshold indicated need of clinical attention [18,42]. Patients receiving the PROMs had higher survival, a lower decrease in health-related quality of life and remained on chemotherapy for longer compared to the treatment-as-usual group [18,42]. Additionally, patients receiving PROMs also had less emergency care visits, were less frequently hospitalised, and had shorter lengths of stay in clinic compared to those in usual care [18,42,23,29,42].

Patient health-related behaviours. Several studies demonstrated that PROMs positively influenced health-related behaviours in patients, such as symptom reporting and more active engagement in their own healthcare and management.

Symptom reporting.

Patients on cancer treatment completing PROMs were more likely to report symptoms compared to those in usual care, particularly for symptoms not perceived as urgent by the patient [55]. PROMs also helped patients with heart-failure to raise health-related problems with their clinician [46]. Specifically, patients described that PROMs provided the language to explain these issues and validated problems as worthy of reporting. PROMs also helped patients to raise symptoms associated with stigma such as pelvic dysfunction or mental health problems [22,46].

Improved patient health management.

PROMs helped patients to actively engage in managing their own health [18,34,46,50,55]. Completing PROMs improved patient awareness of their everyday functioning and of own health [37,41,46,52], which helped them take ownership of managing their symptoms [46,47]. PROMs also helped patients prepare for appointments and facilitated communication with clinicians [37,52].

Patient perspectives on PROMs.

The response rate of PROMs completion varied from 30% to 100%. The lowest response rate was seen in asthma while diabetes, orthopaedic conditions and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) had the highest response rates.

Seven studies reported that patients found PROMs helpful and using PROMs improved their quality of care [18,22,34,37,46,47,60]. More specifically, Porter [50] reported that 92% of patients agreed that PROMs were easy to understand and helped during clinical appointments, and 76% would like PROMs to be included as part of their routine care [50]. In contrast, four studies reported that PROMs were not helpful, were overly bureaucratic, a waste of resources, more for the benefit of clinicians/researchers than patients, and that they did not adequately capture symptoms also voiced more critical patient perspectives regarding PROMs [30,46,48,50].

Impact of PROMs on healthcare professionals and clinical practice.

Eleven studies reported clinicians used patient-reported data to better detect health problems, and tailor treatment to the most appropriate care and support provision [18,24,29,34,37,38,40,42,46,49,52,55]. PROMs were also used in clinical care as a triage tool to signpost patients to the right service at the right time [34]. Additionally, several healthcare professionals reported that PROMs enabled feedback of patient health status between appointments [37,38,42,47,46,49]. Automated PROM systems allowed both clinicians and patients to objectively track changes in health status and mental health over time without an increase in workload [24,29,38,42,49].

PROMs and service monitoring.

Ten studies described PROMs helped to critically appraise, evaluate, and improve service provision to better meet patient and staff needs [21,33,34,38,56]. This often entailed using longitudinal PROMs data to track, inform, and refine services [21,24,29,34,37,38,49], leading to improved efficiency, better management of resources, and improved patient care [21,24,29,33,34,37,38,49]. For instance, a VBHC service in Wales used longitudinal PROM data to inform high-level decision making, which resulted in continued improvement of services [38].

PROMs use with multiple co-morbid conditions

There was a lack of evidence investigating the use of PROMs in patients with multiple comorbidities. Patients with comorbid conditions were typically required to complete several PROMs for each condition, which was perceived as time consuming and repetitive [50]. With some notable exceptions, there was little linking across the PROMs used by the various services. Porter [50] combined PROM administration to patients with co-morbidities to reduce the overall number of PROMs that patients had to complete and avoid duplicate questions]. Additionally, Withers [17] noted the importance of electronic systems to allow the integration of multiple PROM pathways for patients with co-morbidities.

Transferability and generalisability

Thirteen studies were large scale with sample sizes ranging from 822 to 17,892 participants [19,20,2628,3032,34,48,49,51,53,56,60], and fourteen studies evaluated the use of PROMs in more than one centre [17,19,21,22,26,3032,34,38,40,41,46,47,53,56]. Studies evaluated the use of PROMs across 26 health care conditions. Factors that limited transferability included studies conducted in single healthcare centres [15,18,20,28,37,42,43,45,52,54,55,60], the variety different health care models [e.g., private healthcare], and the prominence of studies conducted in academic hospitals that may not be sufficiently similar to hospitals not associated with academic institutions (e.g. resources, staff patient ratios etc) [15,17,20,27,28,37,39,40,52,54,55,60]. It cannot therefore be assumed that the results of these studies will extrapolate to global practice.


We found limited evidence to inform the current understanding on the cost effectiveness of PROMs interventions [13]. PROMs interventions were reported to potentially reduce the need of resources indirectly as it resulted in a reduction of length of hospital stay, emergency department visits and hospitalisations [18,42]. However, not all studies found a significant reduction in appointments and medical tests between patients receiving PROMs compared to patients receiving standard care [55].

Tracer conditions

Configuring the evidence for the four tracer conditions did not add anything to our overall understanding. For completeness, we present the studies organised by the four tracer conditions in S1 File.


We found 43 diverse study designs investigating the implementation, use and impact of PROMs in a broad range of disciplines and specialities. Although there were some descriptions of how PROMs were intended to work, few studies reported a well-developed programme theory. With some notable exceptions (such as early identification of symptoms in cancer), we found little robust evidence of the effectiveness of PROMs. PROMs were universally considered to have the potential to increase patient satisfaction with treatment and services, enhance patient awareness of symptoms and self-management, and improve health outcomes such as quality of life and global health status. PROMS were generally seen by patients as providing information for healthcare professionals. Implementation issues commonly prevented the realisation of optimal outcomes and patents generally needed better and clearer communication about why PROMs were being given and how they could optimally be used by patients to support their own self-management.

Beyond a VBHC context, a Cochrane review [61] including 116 randomised controlled trials that specifically included PROMs feedback as part of the intervention in a broader range of settings and contexts found moderate evidence, calculated as measures of treatment effect size, that PROM feedback improved quality of life, and increased patient-physician communication, and disease control. However, this review also highlights the uncertainty regarding the impact of PROMs on general health perception, pain, fatigue, and on physical, mental, and social functioning [61]. In addition to the benefits associated with PROMs feedback, our scoping review suggested that PROMs longitudinal data helped to evaluate health services and even led to updated models of service delivery. This is supported by the review by Gibbons [61], which demonstrated that PROMs data facilitated quality improvement of services and were regarded as having substantial value beyond informing treatment. This corroborated our finding that PROMs in VBHC can help to evaluate the provision of healthcare and identify issues for improvement and inform the change within existing care pathways when necessary. However, evidence of real-world PROMs implementation and specifically within a VBHC programme is still limited [62], or when available, aggregated PROMs data seemed to be scarcely used to tailor treatments or improve services [44]. For instance, a recent review [63] reported little to no effect of aggregated PROM data on quality improvement methods in healthcare and highlighted the need for more empirical research. Bureaucratic challenges and the accessibility of IT systems integrated within current electronic health records was the main barrier to optimal implementation and use of PROMs data identified in this review. This finding is widely supported by other reviews [16,44,6368]. For example, Gensheimer [65] recommended that PROMs integration into electronic health records is context-dependent and should be guided by multidisciplinary expertise to balance the advantages and disadvantages for each service [61].

Strengths and limitations

An a priori protocol was developed, and the scoping review was conducted using systematic processes. The incorporation of different research designs and methods is particularly relevant in health care research considering the complexity of some aspects of health that cannot be readily quantified (e.g. lived experiences) [69]. The broad focus enabled a comprehensive understanding of the use, implementation, and impact of PROMs within a VBHC setting involving a multidisciplinary team of seven core researchers. It is not a requirement to assess methodological strengths and limitations of included studies in scoping reviews, but we elected to do so.

Some limitations are worthy of note. Due to time constraints, the search strategy was not exhaustive. Therefore, some papers eligible for inclusion may not have been identified. Despite that, a considerable number of databases were searched, and a strategic 3-word search was also conducted. As this is a scoping review, we aimed to provide a broad overview on the use of PROMs within a VBHC or broadly similar setting. While this allowed us to have a detailed overview of the evidence, we had to compromise on depth and specificity. There may be additional useful evidence of PROMs use outside of VBHC programmes to further enhance understanding [13].

Gaps and future research

Evidence about how PROMs work and how best to implement and deliver PROM interventions to optimise achievement of the target outcome within a VBCH and routine practice setting is currently limited. The routine practice and VBHC context are quite different to a time limited research context whereby patients usually complete a set number of PROMs over a defined period of time. It is clear that PROMs do not consistently translate from short-term research to a long-term routine practice context and we need to understand why in order to address the implementation, feasibility and acceptability issues.

More empirical evidence is needed to demonstrate the value of PROMs and the benefits to services and patients. Whilst there is a growing number of implementation, feasibility and pilot studies, there is a lack of large-scale randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PROMs in a VBHC setting. A recent Cochrane review [61] included RCTs where PROMs were used for evaluation rather than the PROMs being the intervention. RCTs are however expensive and may not be the best way of evaluating PROMs in real world contexts as part of a complex intervention in a complex health system. Addressing these gaps in evidence is critical to help inform future strategies regarding the selection, implementation and use of PROMs by patients, carers and healthcare professionals as part of a VBHC programme in routine practice settings. VBHC programmes using PROMs are expensive and time consuming for patients and health care professionals to use. PROMs need to work better and be more highly valued in order to become a long-term sustainable component of routine practice.

More research is needed evaluating the impact of sustained implementation, delivery and costs of PROMs within a healthcare service to understand the full potential of PROMs in clinical practice. We need more understanding of how the proposed theoretical mechanisms of PROMs work in practice. We also found a gap in the evidence about how disease-specific factors might impact the implementation and use of PROMs, which is particularly important for patients with multiple conditions. Indeed, no new findings were highlighted when we configured and analysed the evidence for the four tracer conditions. Further research should investigate the impact of disease-specific factors in the implementation and use of PROMs, particularly in patients with multiple comorbidities. Additionally, building a broader evidence-base evaluating different models of PROM interventions is needed to understand what works best for which conditions, healthcare settings and populations. This is essential for the future developments of evidenced-based, best-practice guidelines for PROMs. Few studies investigated the role of caregivers in health care management [29,60]. Where appropriate, future research should address whether PROMs are feasible and acceptable to caregivers and incorporate caregivers into the design and delivery of PROM interventions. Future studies would also benefit from more integrated stakeholder and patient and public involvement when developing and implementing PROMs in order to capture what is important to patients and healthcare providers. We have subsequently embarked on a large scale realist evaluation and social return on investment analysis to address some of the identified gaps to further support optimal implementation of PROMs in VBHC programmes.


This scoping review has mapped and described what is known and current evidence gaps and sets out a future research agenda. Value-Based healthcare programmes are being rolled out at scale in many different health systems and contexts. PROMs are commonly used in VBHC programmes but they have yet to demonstrate their full potential in a VBHC context. Optimal PROMs implementation is poorly understood by clinicians and patients.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Framework.

Framework used for data analysis.


S3 Table. Characteristics of included studies.

Characteristics of 43 studies.


S4 Table. Quality appraisal.

Quality Appraisal of all included studies using the Quality Assessment for Diverse Studies checklist.


S1 File. Findings for tracer conditions.

Findings related to the implementation and use of PROMs in Epilepsy, Heart Failure, Parkinson’s disease and Cataract surgery.



The authors would like to thank all stakeholders for their valuable input and Eira Winrow for her input to the protocol and initial search.


  1. 1. Teisberg E, Wallace S, O’Hara S. Defining and Implementing Value-Based Health Care. Academic Medicine. 2020;95(5).
  2. 2. Porter ME. What Is Value in Health Care? New England Journal of Medicine. 2010;363(26). pmid:21142528
  3. 3. Putera I. Redefining Health: Implication for Value-Based Healthcare Reform. Cureus. 2017;9(3). pmid:28409068
  4. 4. Kaplan RS, Porter ME. How to solve the cost crisis in health care. Harv Bus Rev. 2011;89(9). pmid:21939127
  5. 5. Epstein RM, Street RL. The values and value of patient-centered care. Vol. 9, Annals of Family Medicine. 2011. pmid:21403134
  6. 6. Tseng EK, Hicks LK. Value Based Care and Patient-Centered Care: Divergent or Complementary? Vol. 11, Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports. 2016. pmid:27262855
  7. 7. Porter I, Gonçalves-Bradley D, Ricci-Cabello I, Gibbons C, Gangannagaripalli J, Fitzpatrick R, et al. Framework and guidance for implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: Evidence, challenges and opportunities. Vol. 5, Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. 2016. pmid:27427277
  8. 8. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice. 2005;8(1).
  9. 9. Brunton G, Oliver S, Thomas J. Innovations in framework synthesis as a systematic review method. Vol. 11, Research Synthesis Methods. 2020. pmid:32090479
  10. 10. Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, Moore G, Tunçalp Ö, Shakibazadeh E. Formulating questions to explore complex interventions within qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4. pmid:30775019
  11. 11. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10). pmid:33038124
  12. 12. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467–73. pmid:30178033
  13. 13. Harrison R, Jones B, Gardener P, Lawton R. Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS): an appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed- or multi-method studies. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1).
  14. 14. Lundh A, Gøtzsche PC. Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8.
  15. 15. Amini M, Oemrawsingh A, Verweij LM, Lingsma HF, Hazelzet JA, Eijkenaar F, et al. Facilitators and barriers for implementing patient-reported outcome measures in clinical care: An academic center’s initial experience. Health Policy (New York). 2021 Sep 1;125(9):1247–55. pmid:34311981
  16. 16. Bernstein DN, McIntyre AW, Baumhauer JF. Effect of assessment administration method and timing on patient-reported outcome measures completion and scores: Overview and recommendations. Vol. 18, Musculoskeletal Care. 2020.
  17. 17. Biber J, Ose D, Reese J, Gardiner A, Facelli J, Spuhl J, et al. Patient reported outcomes–experiences with implementation in a University Health Care setting. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018;2.
  18. 18. Demedts I, Himpe U, Bossuyt J, Anthoons G, Bode H, Bouckaert B, et al. Clinical implementation of value based healthcare: Impact on outcomes for lung cancer patients. Lung Cancer. 2021 Dec 1;162:90–5. pmid:34763159
  19. 19. Devlin NJ, Parkin D, Browne J. Patient-reported outcome measures in the NHS: new methods for analysing and reporting EQ-5D data. Health Econ. 2010;19(8):886–905. pmid:20623685
  20. 20. Goretti G, Marinari GM, Vanni E, Ferrari C. Value-Based Healthcare and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Implementation in a High-Volume Bariatric Center in Italy. Obes Surg. 2020 Jul 1;30(7):2519–27. pmid:32096016
  21. 21. Groeneveld IF, Goossens PH, van Meijeren-Pont W, Arwert HJ, Meesters JJL, Rambaran Mishre AD, et al. Value-Based Stroke Rehabilitation: Feasibility and Results of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the First Year After Stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2019 Feb 1;28(2):499–512. pmid:30503680
  22. 22. Laureij LT, Been J V., Lugtenberg M, Ernst-Smelt HE, Franx A, Hazelzet JA, et al. Exploring the applicability of the pregnancy and childbirth outcome set: A mixed methods study. Patient Educ Couns. 2020 Mar 1;103(3):642–51. pmid:31607633
  23. 23. Liu Y, Pencheon E, Hunter RM, Moncrieff J, Freemantle N. Recruitment and retention strategies in mental health trials–A systematic review. Shorter G, editor. PLoS One. 2018 Aug 29;13(8). pmid:30157250
  24. 24. Moura LMVR, Schwamm E, Moura Junior V, Seitz MP, Hsu J, Cole AJ, et al. Feasibility of the collection of patient-reported outcomes in an ambulatory neurology clinic. Neurology. 2016 Dec 6;87(23):2435–42. pmid:27815405
  25. 25. Nguyen PAH, Vercauter P, Verbeke L, Beelen R, Dooms C, Tournoy KG. Health Outcomes for Definite Concurrent Chemoradiation in Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective Study. Respiration. 2019 Apr 1;97(4):310–8. pmid:30466111
  26. 26. O’Connell S, Palmer R, Withers K, Saha N, Puntoni S, Carolan-Rees G. Requirements for the collection of electronic PROMS either “in clinic” or “at home” as part of the PROMs, PREMs and Effectiveness Programme (PPEP) in Wales: A feasibility study using a generic PROM tool. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018 Apr 25;4(1):1–13.
  27. 27. Oemrawsingh A, Van Leeuwen N, Venema E, Limburg M, De Leeuw FE, Wijffels MP, et al. Value-based healthcare in ischemic stroke care: Case-mix adjustment models for clinical and patient-reported outcomes. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Dec 5;19(1):1–9.
  28. 28. Papuga MO, Dasilva C, McIntyre A, Mitten D, Kates S, Baumhauer JF. Large-scale clinical implementation of PROMIS computer adaptive testing with direct incorporation into the electronic medical record. Health Syst (Basingstoke). 2017 Jan 2;7(1):1–12. pmid:31214335
  29. 29. Pennucci F, De Rosis S, Passino C. Piloting a web-based systematic collection and reporting of patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures in chronic heart failure. BMJ Open. 2020 Oct 5;10(10). pmid:33020096
  30. 30. Peters M, Crocker H, Dummett S, Jenkinson C, Doll H, Gibbons E, et al. Pilot study of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in primary care Report to the Department of Health. 2013;
  31. 31. Peters M, Crocker H, Dummett S, Jenkinson C, Doll H, Fitzpatrick R. Change in health status in long-term conditions over a one year period: A cohort survey using patient-reported outcome measures. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014 Aug 12;12(1):1–10.
  32. 32. Peters M, Crocker H, Jenkinson C, Doll H, Fitzpatrick R. The routine collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for long-term conditions in primary care: a cohort survey. BMJ Open. 2014;4(2).
  33. 33. Queirós L, Redondo P, França M, Silva SE, Borges P, de Melo AB, et al. Implementing ICHOM standard set for cataract surgery at IPO-Porto (Portugal): clinical outcomes, quality of life and costs. BMC Ophthalmol. 2021 Dec 1;21(1):1–10.
  34. 34. Rutherford C, Campbell R, Tinsley M, Speerin R, Soars L, Butcher A, et al. Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures into Clinical Practice Across NSW: Mixed Methods Evaluation of the First Year. Appl Res Qual Life. 2021 Jun 1;16(3):1265–84.
  35. 35. Sparrow JM. PROMs in Cataract Surgery: The feasibility of electronic auditing of self-reported outcomes using Cat-PROM5 Patient Reported Outcomes Measures in Cataract Surgery: The feasibility of electronically auditing self-reported Outcomes using Cat-PROM5. 2020;
  36. 36. van der Willik EM, Meuleman Y, Prantl K, Van Rijn G, Bos WJW, Van Ittersum FJ, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures: selection of a valid questionnaire for routine symptom assessment in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease—a four-phase mixed methods study. BMC Nephrol. 2019 Sep 2;20(1). pmid:31477039
  37. 37. van Egdom LSE, Lagendijk M, van der Kemp MH, van Dam JH, Mureau MAM, Hazelzet JA, et al. Implementation of Value Based Breast Cancer Care. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019 Jul 1;45(7):1163–70. pmid:30638807
  38. 38. Withers K, Palmer R, Lewis S, Carolan-Rees G. First steps in PROMs and PREMs collection in Wales as part of the prudent and value-based healthcare agenda. Qual Life Res. 2021 Nov 1;30(11):3157–70. pmid:33249539
  39. 39. Allar BG, Eruchalu CN, Rahman S, Mou D, Ortega G, Reich AJ, et al. Lost in translation: A qualitative analysis of facilitators and barriers to collecting patient reported outcome measures for surgical patients with limited English proficiency. Am J Surg. 2022 Jul 1;224(1 Pt B):514–21. pmid:35339269
  40. 40. Austin E, LeRouge C, Hartzler AL, Segal C, Lavallee DC. Capturing the patient voice: implementing patient-reported outcomes across the health system. Qual Life Res. 2020 Feb 1;29(2):347–55. pmid:31606809
  41. 41. Ashley L, Jones H, Thomas J, Newsham A, Downing A, Morris E, et al. Integrating Patient Reported Outcomes With Clinical Cancer Registry Data: A Feasibility Study of the Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes From Cancer Survivors (ePOCS) System. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(10).
  42. 42. Basch E, Deal AM, Kris MG, Scher HI, Hudis CA, Sabbatini P, et al. Symptom Monitoring With Patient-Reported Outcomes During Routine Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016 Feb 20;34(6):557–65. pmid:26644527
  43. 43. Munger Clary HM, Snively BM, Topaloglu U, Duncan P, Kimball J, Alexander H, et al. Patient-reported outcomes via electronic health record portal versus telephone: a pragmatic randomized pilot trial of anxiety or depression symptoms in epilepsy. JAMIA Open. 2022 Oct 4;5(4).
  44. 44. Damman OC, Verbiest MEA, Vonk SI, Berendse HW, Bloem BR, de Bruijne MC, et al. Using PROMs during routine medical consultations: The perspectives of people with Parkinson’s disease and their health professionals. Health Expect [Internet]. 2019 Oct 1 [cited 2022 Dec 8];22(5):939–51. Available from: pmid:31199574
  45. 45. Fung SSM, Luis J, Hussain B, Bunce C, Hingorani M, Hancox J. Patient-reported outcome measuring tools in cataract surgery: Clinical comparison at a tertiary hospital. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016 Dec 1;42(12):1759–67.
  46. 46. Kane PM, Ellis-Smith CI, Daveson BA, Ryan K, Mahon NG, McAdam B, et al. Understanding how a palliative-specific patient-reported outcome intervention works to facilitate patient-centred care in advanced heart failure: A qualitative study. Palliat Med. 2018 Jan 1;32(1):143–55. pmid:29154724
  47. 47. Kane PM, Daveson BA, Ryan K, Ellis-Smith CI, Mahon NG, McAdam B, et al. Feasibility and acceptability of a patient-reported outcome intervention in chronic heart failure. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2017 Dec 1;7(4):470–9. pmid:28864449
  48. 48. Malhotra K, Buraimoh O, Thornton J, Cullen N, Singh D, Goldberg AJ. Electronic capture of patient-reported and clinician-reported outcome measures in an elective orthopaedic setting: a retrospective cohort analysis. BMJ Open. 2016 Jun 1;6(6).
  49. 49. Moura LMVR, Magliocco B, Ney JP, Cheng EM, Esper GJ, Hoch DB. Implementation of quality measures and patient-reported outcomes in an epilepsy clinic. Neurology. 2019 Nov 26;93(22):E2032–41. pmid:31666351
  50. 50. Porter I, Davey A, Gangannagaripalli J, Evans J, Bramwell C, Evans P, et al. Integrating Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) into routine nurse-led primary care for patients with multimorbidity: a feasibility and acceptability study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021 Dec 1;19(1). pmid:33902607
  51. 51. Sajobi TT, Josephson CB, Sawatzky R, Wang M, Lawal O, Patten SB, et al. Quality of Life in Epilepsy: Same questions, but different meaning to different people. Epilepsia. 2021 Sep 1;62(9):2094–102. pmid:34309838
  52. 52. Schuler M, Trautmann F, Radloff M, Hentschel L, Petzold T, Eberlein-Gonska M, et al. Implementation and first results of a tablet-based assessment referring to patient-reported outcomes in an inpatient cancer care unit. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2017 Apr 1;121:64–72. pmid:28372924
  53. 53. Sparrow JM, Grzeda MT, Frost NA, Johnston RL, Liu CSC, Edwards L, et al. Cataract surgery patient-reported outcome measures: a head-to-head comparison of the psychometric performance and patient acceptability of the Cat-PROM5 and Catquest-9SF self-report questionnaires. Eye (Lond). 2018 Apr 1;32(4):788–95. pmid:29386619
  54. 54. Tognetto D, Giglio R, De Giacinto C, Dell’Aquila C, Pian G, Scardellato C, et al. Cataract standard set for outcome measures: An Italian tertiary referral centre experience. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021 Mar 1;32(2):902–10. pmid:34053333
  55. 55. Wheelock AE, Bock MA, Martin EL, Hwang J, Lou Ernest M, Rugo HS, et al. SIS.NET: a randomized controlled trial evaluating a web-based system for symptom management after treatment of breast cancer. Cancer. 2015 Mar 1;121(6):893–9. pmid:25469673
  56. 56. Zijlmans BL, van Zijderveld R, Manzulli M, Garay-Aramburu G, Czapski P, Eter N, et al. Global multi-site, prospective analysis of cataract surgery outcomes following ICHOM standards: the European CAT-Community. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2021 Jul 1;259(7):1897–905. pmid:33855602
  57. 57. Liu TC, Ohueri CW, Schryver E, Bozic KJ, Koenig KM. Patient-Identified Barriers and Facilitators to Pre-Visit Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures Completion in Patients With Hip and Knee Pain. J Arthroplasty. 2018 Mar 1;33(3):643–649.e1. pmid:29169689
  58. 58. Jones FJS, Ezzeddine FL, Herman ST, Buchhalter J, Fureman B, Moura LMVR. A feasibility assessment of functioning and quality-of-life patient-reported outcome measures in adult epilepsy clinics: A systematic review. Vol. 102, Epilepsy and Behavior. 2020. pmid:31816482
  59. 59. Hsiao CJ, Dymek C, Kim B, Russell B. Advancing the use of patient-reported outcomes in practice: understanding challenges, opportunities, and the potential of health information technology. Qual Life Res. 2019 Jun 15;28(6):1575–83. pmid:30684149
  60. 60. Bernstein DN, Fear K, Mesfin A, Hammert WC, Mitten DJ, Rubery PT, et al. Patient-reported outcomes use during orthopaedic surgery clinic visits improves the patient experience. Musculoskeletal Care. 2019 Mar 1;17(1):120–5. pmid:30615249
  61. 61. Gibbons C, Porter I, Gonçalves-Bradley DC, Stoilov S, Ricci-Cabello I, Tsangaris E, et al. Routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice. Vol. 2021, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2021. pmid:34637526
  62. 62. Anatchkova M, Donelson SM, Skalicky AM, McHorney CA, Jagun D, Whiteley J. Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: Need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature. Vol. 2, Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes. 2018. pmid:30588562
  63. 63. Dorr MC, van Hof KS, Jelsma JGM, Dronkers EAC, de Jong RJB, Offerman MPJ, et al. Quality improvements of healthcare trajectories by learning from aggregated patient-reported outcomes: a mixed-methods systematic literature review. Vol. 20, Health Research Policy and Systems. 2022. pmid:35978425
  64. 64. Jensen RE, Rothrock NE, Dewitt EM, Spiegel B, Tucker CA, Crane HM, et al. The role of technical advances in the adoption and integration of patient-reported outcomes in clinical care. Med Care. 2015;53(2). pmid:25588135
  65. 65. Gensheimer SG, Wu AW, Snyder CF, Basch E, Gerson J, Holve E, et al. Oh, the Places We’ll Go: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Electronic Health Records. Patient. 2018;11(6). pmid:29968179
  66. 66. Foster A, Croot L, Brazier J, Harris J, O’cathain A. The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: A systematic review of reviews. Vol. 2, Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes. 2018. pmid:30363333
  67. 67. Lehmann J, Rothmund M, Riedl D, Rumpold G, Grote V, Fischer MJ, et al. Clinical outcome assessment in cancer rehabilitation and the central role of patient-reported outcomes. Vol. 14, Cancers. 2022.
  68. 68. Lavallee DC, Chenok KE, Love RM, Petersen C, Holve E, Segal CD, et al. Incorporating patient-reported outcomes into health care to engage patients and enhance care. Health Aff. 2016;35(4). pmid:27044954
  69. 69. Sirriyeh R, Lawton R, Gardner P, Armitage G. Reviewing studies with diverse designs: the development and evaluation of a new tool. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012 Aug 1;18(4):746–52. pmid:21410846