Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Patient experience (PX) is crucial for evaluating healthcare quality in oncology, encompassing comprehensive interactions from diagnosis through survivorship. However, the field lacks consensus on PX measurement and its conceptualization. The aim of this scoping review was to systematically map methods and tools used to measure PX in original studies, while providing detailed characteristics of each tool.</p> Methods <p>Guided by the Arksey and O'Malley framework, this review involved a systematic search across six databases up to May 2025.</p> Results <p>Data from 109 original studies, identifying 43 unique tools, were extracted and synthesized narratively. Survey-based questionnaires predominated, with national cancer PX surveys being most frequently used (44%). Despite this, significant fragmentation was evident, with most tools used in limited studies (1–2). 63% of tools lacked explicit theoretical foundations, and psychometric reporting was imprecise. Consistently measured domains included information/communication, care coordination, and respect/dignity.</p> Conclusions <p>The measurement of PX in oncology is diverse but inconsistent, marked by a lack of standardization, theoretical ambiguity, and insufficient psychometric validation. Therefore, it is highly challenging to transfer such results into impactful clinical interventions for patients. Addressing these gaps through theory-driven tool development, rigorous validation, and culturally appropriate adaptations, especially for cancer survivorship and diverse global contexts, is essential.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Mapping methods and tools for measuring patient experience in oncology settings: a scoping review

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月18日

查看全文
  • Julia Charlotte Kowalska,
  • Dawid Storman,
  • Kamila Michalska,
  • Mateusz Świerz,
  • Małgorzata Maraj,
  • Joanna Zając,
  • Alicja Domagała

摘要

Purpose

Patient experience (PX) is crucial for evaluating healthcare quality in oncology, encompassing comprehensive interactions from diagnosis through survivorship. However, the field lacks consensus on PX measurement and its conceptualization. The aim of this scoping review was to systematically map methods and tools used to measure PX in original studies, while providing detailed characteristics of each tool.

Methods

Guided by the Arksey and O'Malley framework, this review involved a systematic search across six databases up to May 2025.

Results

Data from 109 original studies, identifying 43 unique tools, were extracted and synthesized narratively. Survey-based questionnaires predominated, with national cancer PX surveys being most frequently used (44%). Despite this, significant fragmentation was evident, with most tools used in limited studies (1–2). 63% of tools lacked explicit theoretical foundations, and psychometric reporting was imprecise. Consistently measured domains included information/communication, care coordination, and respect/dignity.

Conclusions

The measurement of PX in oncology is diverse but inconsistent, marked by a lack of standardization, theoretical ambiguity, and insufficient psychometric validation. Therefore, it is highly challenging to transfer such results into impactful clinical interventions for patients. Addressing these gaps through theory-driven tool development, rigorous validation, and culturally appropriate adaptations, especially for cancer survivorship and diverse global contexts, is essential.