Purpose Patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs/PREMs) are well established in research for many health conditions, but barriers persist for implementing them in routine care. Implementation science (IS) offers a potential way forward, but its application has been limited for PROMs/PREMs. Methods We compare similarities and differences for widely used IS frameworks and their applicability for implementing PROMs/PREMs through case studies. Three case studies implemented PROMs: (1) pain clinics in Canada; (2) oncology clinics in Australia; and (3) pediatric/adult clinics for chronic conditions in the Netherlands. The fourth case study is planning PREMs implementation in Canadian primary care clinics. We compare case studies on barriers, enablers, implementation strategies, and evaluation. Results Case studies used IS frameworks to systematize barriers, to develop implementation strategies for clinics, and to evaluate implementation effectiveness. Across case studies, consistent PROM/PREM implementation barriers were technology, uncertainty about how or why to use PROMs/PREMs, and competing demands from established clinical workflows. Enabling factors in clinics were context specific. Implementation support strategies changed during pre-implementation, implementation, and post-implementation stages. Evaluation approaches were inconsistent across case studies, and thus, we present example evaluation metrics specific to PROMs/PREMs. Conclusion Multilevel IS frameworks are necessary for PROM/PREM implementation given the complexity. In cross-study comparisons, barriers to PROM/PREM implementation were consistent across patient populations and care settings, but enablers were context specific, suggesting the need for tailored implementation strategies based on clinic resources. Theoretically guided studies are needed to clarify how, why, and in what circumstances IS principles lead to successful PROM/ PREM integration and sustainability.

Purpose During the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands, governmental regulations resulted in a lockdown for adults as well as children/adolescents. Schools were closed and contact with other people was limited. In this cross-sectional, population-based study, we aimed to investigate the mental/social health of children/adolescents during COVID-19 lockdown. Methods Two representative samples of Dutch children/adolescents (8–18 years) before COVID-19 (2018, N = 2401) and during lockdown (April 2020, N = 844) were compared on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains: global health, peer relationships, anxiety, depressive symptoms, anger, sleep-related impairment by linear mixed models and calculating relative risks (RR (95% CI)) for the proportion of severe scores. Variables associated with worse mental/social health during COVID-19 were explored through multivariable regression models. The impact of COVID-19 regulations on the daily life of children was qualitatively analyzed. Results Participants reported worse PROMIS T-scores on all domains during COVID-19 lockdown compared to before (absolute mean difference range 2.1–7.1 (95% CI 1.3–7.9). During lockdown, more children reported severe Anxiety (RR = 1.95 (1.55–2.46) and Sleep-Related Impairment (RR = 1.89 (1.29–2.78) and fewer children reported poor Global Health (RR = 0.36 (0.20–0.65)). Associated factors with worse mental/social health were single-parent family, ≥ three children in the family, negative change in work situation of parents due to COVID-19 regulations, and a relative/friend infected with COVID-19. A large majority (> 90%) reported a negative impact of the COVID-19 regulations on daily life. Conclusion This study showed that governmental regulations regarding lockdown pose a serious mental/social health threat on children/adolescents that should be brought to the forefront of political decision-making and mental healthcare policy, intervention, and prevention.