Improving quality of care through the OECD Patient Reported Indicator Surveys (PaRIS)

2. Communication and dissemination

Dissemination and communication of findings, and engagement of key stakeholders has been a priority in all countries. Almost all of them published a national report, summarising the key findings from PaRIS Cycle 1 to their national audience. PaRIS‑10 key indicators have been the driving main content in most national reports and most of the time were presented along with other themes. Most countries organised policy dialogues with the participation of key stakeholders to enhance policy relevance and uptake of findings. National project managers presented the findings at various additional events, including academic conferences as well as sessions hosted by ministries to raise awareness. Some countries also produced analytical reports and academic papers drawing on additional analysis of their national data. This section details the dissemination and communication activities carried out at the national levels.

Dissemination and communication of the results from Cycle 1 were largely led by national project management teams, which varied in composition by country depending on the local context. In some countries, national project management was assigned to the Ministry of Health which also contributed from a policy perspective, while in others national project management was assigned to another institution. In some countries, regional and local authorities also took a role in the project management, by implementing the survey in their local context.

Project Management teams led by the ministry of health with academic advisors characterised Portugal and Spain. Portugal worked through the Ministry of Health and ACSS with the National School of Public Health as methodological partner, along with an advisory board of professional and patient organisations. Spain’s Ministry of Health also co‑ordinated with autonomous communities, scientific associations and patient groups.

National project management was led by academic institutions in collaboration with the Ministry of Health in Czechia, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg. Czechia appointed an academic family doctor affiliated with the Medical Faculty of Charles University to manage delivery with a designated Ministry of Health liaison to keep policy and implementation aligned. Greece placed overall responsibility with the Ministry of Health while the University of Athens led operations and survey implementation. Italy appointed the delegates to the Working Party on PaRIS from the Ministry of Health with survey implementation and analysis co‑ordinated by the Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies. In Luxembourg, the operationalisation of PaRIS in the country was conducted by the Luxembourg Institute of Health, which was mandated by the Directorate of Health within the Ministry of Health and Social Security.

A ministry and public health institute model operated in Australia, Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Switzerland and Wales. In Australia, the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care implemented the survey on behalf of the Department of Health, Disability and Aging. Belgium mandated Sciensano to run the project with a scientific steering committee including the health insurance institute and regional authorities. In the Netherlands, the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL) was appointed the national project manager by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Norway appointed the National Institute of Public Health as the national project manager and as the delegate to the Working Party on PaRIS. Switzerland appointed Unisanté as the operational hub and co‑ordinated with the Federal Quality Commission for decision making. In Romania, the National Authority for Quality Management in Healthcare was delegated by the Romanian Government to manage delivery. Wales located delivery in the NHS Wales Value in Health Centre with policy direction from the Welsh Government.

The United States ran PaRIS within the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey at Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) with the policy implementation sitting largely decentralised from the project management team, and Saudi Arabia placed leadership with Centre for Value in Health (a policy think tank) under the national health insurance authority and drew in ministries, the health sector transformation programme, the primary care directorate, the national patient experience centre and private payers.

Local service and ministry combination characterised Slovenia, where the Ljubljana community health centre led with a deputy from the Ministry of Health and close co‑operation with the National Institute of Public Health, the Family Medicine Department and professional bodies.

Canada organised co‑ordination through the Canadian Primary Care Research Network with national project management teams from academia and provincial leads engaging each provincial ministry during fieldwork and follow‑up. In Iceland, the national project management and delegation was completely transferred to the University of Iceland, who also provided financing for Cycle 1.

Dissemination activities focussed on national reports, policy dialogues and other channels

Dissemination centred on a national report or summary in every country, paired with structured policy dialogues that brought policymakers, primary care professionals and patient groups to a shared view of findings and next steps, while visual materials, targeted events and webinars widened reach and tailored fit to national governance contexts. Figure 1 shows how countries used different dissemination channels.

Figure 1. Nine countries published national reports, and most countries complemented them with additional dissemination channels

Note: All participating countries from Cycle 1 are included in the figure. Traditional media refers to print media, trade publications and television.

Almost all countries published national reports or other summaries of national findings

Almost all countries produced a national‑level report (some of them being publicly available) or equivalent summary document, though approaches differed (Table 1). Australia, Belgium, Czechia, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland prepared structured national publications with methods sections and nationally focussed key findings, drawing on the PaRIS‑10 key indicators. Common elements included descriptions of sampling and weighting, instrument design and data collection, and presentation of core experience and outcome measures. Several reports also offered sub‑national breakdowns and downloadable materials to support reuse. Australia’s national report summarised results across 10‑key indicators and set out key insights for quality improvement. Czechia’s national report, prepared with the Institute of Health Information and Statistics, combined international comparison with detailed national analysis. Norway’s report followed a standard policy format with key messages, executive summary, methods, results, discussion and conclusions tailored to the national context. Spain’s Ministry of Health hosts a dedicated PaRIS webpage with the national report, methodological notes, microdata access and infographics for each autonomous community.

Several countries complemented their reports with visual and digital materials to broaden reach. Luxembourg, Saudi Arabia, Spain and Wales developed infographics to support communication with lay audiences, Czechia and Switzerland produced short videos to explain results, and Luxembourg and Switzerland host dedicated PaRIS webpages to consolidate national content.

Table 1. Some countries made national reports publicly available

Country	Title/Link
Australia	OECD Patient-Reported Indicator Surveys (PaRIS): Australian national report 2025
Belgium	Patient-Reported Indicator Surveys (PaRIS): Insights from Belgium
Czechia	Národní Zpráva o Projektu PaRIS
France	Les patients de 45 ans ou plus sont globalement satisfaits de leur prise en charge en médecine générale Premiers résultats de l’enquête PaRIS, en France
The Netherlands	Ervaringen van mensen met chronische aandoeningen met de huisartsenzorg in Nederland
Norway	OECD’s Patient-Reported Indicator Surveys (PaRIS) Norsk resultatrapport
Portugal	A saúde vista pelos utentes em Portugal
Spain	Proyecto PaRIS : Indicadores de Resultados y Experiencias Referidos por los Pacientes Atendidos en Atención Primaria
Switzerland	Enquête PaRIS Rapport Phase 3 : Mise en œuvre de l’enquête PaRIS en Suisse et ses résultats principaux

Most countries organised or attended policy dialogues to discuss their national findings with policymakers and other stakeholders

Almost all participating countries organised or attended policy dialogues by bringing a wide set of stakeholders together to collaborate on the interpretation of PaRIS results and develop policy priorities and actions where possible (Figure 2). In Belgium, Sciensano in collaboration with federal authorities (Federal Public Service Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment) and the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance, organised a national conference based on the findings from the national report. At the event, various panel discussions took place with policymakers, regional health agencies, healthcare professionals and patients. The outcomes of the event led to a press release statement. In Czechia, the Ministry of Health organised a policy dialogue including healthcare professionals, patients and journalists. Brochures including the main PaRIS findings in plain language were disseminated at the event, along with a press conference to further raise public awareness. In addition, a short video was prepared (based on the international PaRIS video prepared by the Secretariat for the Ministerial Meeting in January 2025). Italy’s Ministry of Health held a national meeting in July 2025 and a national workshop for regions that was widely streamed and drew strong participation from primary healthcare staff and academics. Portugal’s national project management team organised a policy dialogue in July 2025 and convened its advisory board and Ministry of Health representatives to review findings and identify priority areas informed by PaRIS. In Romania, a national event was held with stakeholders from patient associations, public institutions, professional organisations and international organisations. In addition, written briefings were provided to the Ministry of Health and the Prime Minister to inform them of the PaRIS results. A proposal is now under consideration to establish a working group on primary care quality to draft policies addressing issues identified through PaRIS. Similarly to Czechia, in Slovenia, the Ministry of Health organised a national policy dialogue where several stakeholders, including patient representatives, healthcare professionals and the National Institute of Public Health attended to discuss the PaRIS findings. The Secretariat was also present at these national events to share the perspectives at the international level.

Figure 2. Several countries organised dedicated national policy events and most presented at conferences and other events

Note: The figure is based on the interviews with 16 countries participated in PaRIS Cycle 1.

In countries where no national events took place with broader stakeholder groups and other participants, national project managers briefed the Ministry of Health orally or in writing. In Australia, briefings were made at high-level executive meetings at the Department of Health, Disability and Aging to support ongoing work in primary care policy development. National project managers from Canada presented the findings to Health Canada and other stakeholders. Given the provincial implementation of PaRIS in Canada (i.e. the implementation was led by provincial project managers across 10 provinces), the dissemination activities were also held by provincial leads at the province level. Greece presented the results at policy dialogues in addition to other national conferences and bilateral events. In Iceland, national project managers presented the results to the Ministry of Health, followed by discussions with the Directorate of Health and the Development Centre for Primary Healthcare in Iceland. In Luxembourg, national project managers briefed the Directorate of Health on the results, and counterparts engaged in working groups on patient‑centred care and integrated care. In Norway, several high-level policy meetings were held. The National Project Management Team (on behalf of the National Institute of Public Health) presented findings to the Ministry of Health, including a separate meeting with the State Secretary and other policymakers. The results were also presented to the national reference group for PaRIS in Norway, with representatives from patient organisations, municipalities, primary care and the health directorate. The United States briefed the results in different meetings and shared the results broadly, including an infographic now used by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Australia and Wales (United Kingdom) also held various proactive, bespoke presentations to different stakeholder groups. In Australia presentations were made to the National Rural Health commissioner to support discussions on primary care, and to the National Multidisciplinary Primary Care Consortium Think Tank, to support discussions on primary care reform. In Wales, several tailored meetings were held with the Welsh Government, Health Boards and other stakeholders, where PaRIS results were contextualised further by using additional data and information sources.

Stakeholder dialogues were also designed to generate tangible outputs for decision making. Portugal presented the results confidentially to its advisory board ahead of the official launch event. The outcomes of the discussions supported the interpretation of the findings in the country’s context. In July 2025, another policy dialogue was organised at the Ministry of Health by gathering advisory board members as well as other relevant stakeholders. The outcomes of this meeting identified three policy priorities for the Portuguese policy activities (see Section 3). Switzerland specifically acquired additional funding after the launch of the flagship report to convene a stakeholder meeting in April 2025. Around 20 people attended the meeting in person in Bern to discuss the results and deliver concrete policy and practice recommendations. From this meeting Switzerland produced a stakeholder dialog report to communicate the findings and recommendations to the public, as well as a factsheet, one‑page infographic, six videos and a press release.

Most countries organised additional events and activities to further disseminate the findings among stakeholders

Countries organised audience‑specific events and workshops and spoke directly with practitioners to extend the reach of PaRIS results and support practical use. Australia held a dedicated conference at the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners focussing on the Australian results and providing a list of recommended actions for general practices. Greece presented both pilot and final findings at national conferences, ISPOR Europe conferences and delivered other online presentations, for example at the Longevity Centre. Czechia and Slovenia presented at the national family doctors’ congress, while Switzerland shared results at the Swiss Public Health Conference.

Czechia, Canada, Portugal and Slovenia organised a joint workshop to present the findings and lessons learned at the WONCA World conference in 2025. Wales engaged stakeholders by delivering the results to a wide range of conferences and events and strategically tailored presentations for each conference to ensure that healthcare professionals, managers and researchers could engage with the most salient evidence.

Some countries also spoke directly to practitioners and healthcare centres, such as Slovenia, which delivered internal briefings for healthcare centres as well as Wales presenting at NHS clinical group meetings. Belgium presented the findings to the Commissie Gezondheidszorgdoelstellingen (GDOS), which advises on healthcare objectives and evaluates policy results and related budget proposals using concrete indicators, providing policy‑oriented evidence and proposals for specific objectives and measures. Canada also presented at the Canadian Primary Care Research Network, the North American Primary Care Research Group, the International Conference on Integrated Care and the Annual Family Medicine Forum. In Iceland, outreach included presentations at the national primary care conference, the national nursing research conference and sessions with university students.

Traditional media channels also supported dissemination of PaRIS results. Australia released two radio programmes with its national broadcaster, as well as publications in newspapers and healthcare trade publications. Luxembourg featured the findings in national magazines targeted at healthcare professionals. In Belgium, an article on the PaRIS results, as well as the conference were published in trade publications. In Czechia, national television and journal news covered the project and its results. In Norway, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health collaborated with patient organisations to produce a research news article on the OECD flagship report, including commentary on the main findings for Norway. Romania organised TV interviews to disseminate the national findings and many countries also published press releases, such as Australia, France, Luxembourg and Switzerland.

Digital channels also expanded reach and stakeholder engagement. In Canada, each provincial lead ran webinars and social media outreach. Canada is also building future research capacity by working with the Canadian Primary Care Research Consortium and TUTOR‑PHC to give graduate students access to the database. Some additional dissemination focussed on building internal awareness of PaRIS within government. In Saudi Arabia, the Centre for Value in Health delivered a four‑part webinar series focussing on PaRIS at a glance, PROMs and PREMs, care capabilities and international comparisons led by regional health directorates. The webinar series was complemented with presentations at the Global Health Exhibition, national conferences, events and in universities, while Greece also used virtual webinars to engage wider audiences. In Spain, national project managers presented PaRIS findings to Ministry of Health staff, and this continues to be included in induction training so that incoming Ministry of Health staff are familiar with the results (see Section 4).

Countries conducted additional analysis on their national data and produced academic papers

Countries used PaRIS data to deepen analysis and publish peer‑reviewed work (Table 2). The themes addressed in these publications were mainly driven by the international analysis and each country’s initial national analysis, especially in areas where the country identified gaps, demonstrated strong performance or had specific policy priorities. Australia is currently working on a research article on PaRIS focussing on the methodology, Australian results and key insights for quality improvement. Canada is assembling a special journal issue of ten articles using PaRIS data, covering topics such as self‑management support, mental health and how patient characteristics relate to experience, while Italy is assessing the impact of care co‑ordination on trust and health status. Czechia has published articles on patient‑reported experience and outcomes alongside a commentary. Luxembourg is advancing national studies on access to primary care and on obesity care, using PaRIS data for further analysis. Norway has a wide research pipeline examining predictors of PREMs and PROMs, clustering at the GP level, cancer‑specific analyses and psychometric testing of the Norwegian version of the PaRIS questionnaires. Slovenia, reported publications for professional and scientific audiences, including work on field testing, cultural adaptation and patient perspectives on primary care quality. Spain published further analysis on trust in the healthcare system (Ministry of Health, Spain, 2026[9]) and is currently preparing national reports on the 10 key PROMs and PREMs indicators and a study on mental health. In Saudi Arabia, the Centre for Value in Health has been working on several publications concerning multimorbidity and care experiences, care co‑ordination, determinants of trust, confidence to self-manage, disparities across age groups, primary care characteristics, comparison between people with and without chronic conditions, and socio‑economic disparities.

Cross‑country collaboration is also emerging, with teams from Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland undertaking a joint study on perceptions of care co‑ordination.

Wales built a bank of analyses and a stakeholder‑oriented dashboard, which allows tailored products such as maps on co‑ordination of care and workforce readiness to be delivered quickly to stakeholders when requested.

Table 2. Countries published academic papers, editorials and infographics

Country	Title/Link	Type
Australia	Managing Chronic Conditions in Australia	Infographic
Belgium	Investigating care outcomes and experiences of adults with Long COVID through patient- reported indicators (PROMs and PREMs) in Belgium	Academic Paper
Belgium	Exploring health outcomes and care experiences of adults with post-COVID-19 condition in Belgium	Academic Paper
Canada	International effort harnessing the collective voice of primary care	Commentary
Canada	Evaluating the Participatory Processes within the OECD PaRIS Project in Saskatchewan: Lessons Learned about Recruitment and Engagement	Academic Paper
Canada	Participatory Evaluation of the OECD PaRIS Dashboards in Saskatchewan: Grounded in Relationships	Academic Paper
Canada	OECD Patient-Reported Indicators Survey (PaRIS) in Canada: Results From the National Study | Annals of Family Medicine	Academic Paper
Canada	Design and Performance of an Email-Based Patient Recruitment Campaign in Primary Care Research: Formative Secondary Analysis	Academic Paper
Czechia	Pruzkum zkušeností chronicky nemocných s pécí poskytovanou v ordinacích praktických lékaru a hodnocení výstupu této péce	Academic Paper
Czechia	PRACTICUS	Editorial
Czechia	Zdravotní Péce Ocima Pacientu	Policy Paper
Greece	Implementation of the Patient Reported Indicator Surveys (PaRIS) in Greece: A Cornerstone in Systematic Investigation of Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes from Primary Health Care Services	Academic Paper
Luxembourg	PaRIS Survey Results for Your Country	Infographic
The Netherlands	Nieuw onderzoek naar ervaringen van patiënten met een chronische aandoening | Huisarts en wetenschap	Research Note
The Netherlands	PaRIS-onderzoek: zorg bij chronische aandoeningen	Academic Paper
Norway	International survey of people living with chronic conditions (PaRIS survey): effects of general practitioner non-participation on the representativeness of the Norwegian patient data	Academic Paper
Norway	Identifying patient and provider determinants of primary care experiences and outcomes for persons with chronic conditions: a multilevel analysis of a nation-wide survey in Norway	Academic Paper
Portugal	How Person-Centered Care shapes patients’ trust in healthcare: Insights from Portugal's PaRIS study	Academic Paper
Saudi Arabia	The Patient Reported Indicators Survey (PaRIS) in Saudi Arabia: Measuring Patient Reported Outcomes and Experiences in Adults Aged 18-44	Academic Paper
Slovenia	Cultural Adaptation of Patient-Reported Indicator Surveys (PaRIS) Patient and Primary Care Practice Questionnaires to the Slovenian Context	Academic Paper
Slovenia	Patient Reported Indicator Surveys (PaRIS): Methodological Considerations of a Field Trial in Slovenia	Academic Paper
Slovenia	Patient perspectives on the quality of primary care for chronic conditions in Slovenia: evidence from the PaRIS survey	Academic Paper
Spain	Infografías elaboradas por el Ministerio de Sanidad con los resultados nacionales de la encuesta PaRIS presentados por CCAA	Infographic
Spain	Encuesta Internacional de Indicadores de Salud Referidos por los Pacientes: el protocolo del Estudio PaRIS en España	Academic Paper
Spain	Proyecto PaRIS : Confianza En Los Profesionales Sanitarios	Research Paper
Switzerland	PaRIS Fact Sheet	Fact Sheet
Switzerland	PaRIS Infographic	Infographic
Wales	The use of PROMIS as part of a population needs assessment in Wales - Advances in Patient-Reported Outcomes	Academic Paper
Wales	Shared-decision-making, trust in the healthcare system and health literacy are associated with self-reported pain levels: a population-based cross-sectional study in individuals living with a chronic health condition in Wales	Academic Paper
Wales	Confidence to Self-Manage in Diabetes: An All-Wales Cross-Sectional Population Study	Academic Paper
United States	Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Among the Medicare Population	Infographic

PaRIS has raised awareness of the collection and use of patient-reported measures in healthcare performance assessment

PaRIS raised awareness of the collection and use of patient‑reported measures across participating countries. Often PaRIS was the first time PROMs and PREMs were collected at national scale for healthcare performance assessment, or the international benchmarking was an important additional layer in countries where existing PROMs and/or PREMs data collections took place. Beyond the PaRIS results, available PaRIS instruments such as validated standardised patient questionnaire and this visibility often inspired broader collection in other healthcare settings.

PaRIS influenced the broader collection of patient-reported measures across healthcare systems and services

Across countries, PaRIS helped catalyse broader efforts to expand patient‑reported measurement beyond the survey itself. Countries described using PaRIS as a starting point for a wider shift toward routine monitoring of patient‑reported outcomes and experiences. In Canada, the Canadian Primary Care Research Consortium used PaRIS as a part of a wider movement to encourage the systematic use PROMs and PREMs. The province of Québec has now started several research initiatives, collecting patient reported experience measures from primary care practices, and in Saskatchewan, a collaboration between teams during the implementation of PaRIS led to the creation of practice‑based research and learning network that continues to operate after Cycle 1. Italy has also used a similar approach in using PaRIS to disseminate the concepts of patient reported experience across national and regional levels. Luxembourg is using patient‑reported information for the first time inside the ministry and the Observatoire de la Santé, which is raising the profile the patient perspective in policy and practice. Romania is exploring the implementation of PaRIS‑inspired PROMs and PREMs indicators in hospital settings, with a view to potentially use them as part of accreditation processes to monitor and improve quality of care. Saudi Arabia has been exploring how PaRIS can guide the development of patient‑experience tools in hospitals and clinics, using it as a reference for validated question design. In Slovenia, PaRIS helped redirect attention toward quality assessment in primary care, a domain that was dominated by secondary care, and encouraged discussions on how patient‑reported indicators could be embedded in routine monitoring.

The influence of PaRIS has informed the creation of new programmes collecting patient reported measures. Greece has developed instrument for hospitals to assess patient‑reported experience, drawing on PaRIS alongside other sources. Additionally, the Greek national patient organisation drew on PaRIS instruments to produce a shorter, locally tailored tool to record patient reported experience, the results of which are now being finalised following completion of its first survey round. Belgium is looking to integrate PaRIS questions or use them as a guide to develop indicators on integrated care; and PaRIS is currently the only national‑level source for patient-reported measures in primary-care. In Italy, by utilising the administrative data flows established during PaRIS, the regions of Tuscany and Veneto have continued patient-reported experience measurement, allowing them to provide granular feedback to facilities and local areas. Slovenia plans to develop an e‑platform which will collect PROMs and PREMs after each primary care visit, making it relevant for individual patient care. Norway has integrated PaRIS‑10 indicators into the annual national PREM survey for general practice, conducted with patient samples from all 356 municipalities. These indicators complement the existing standardised PREM measures at both national and municipal levels, subject to adequate discrimination, reliability, and validity. In the United States, MCBS now tests some additional trust items following the influential results observed in PaRIS. Some of these efforts are supported by sustainable integrated structures allowing continuous measurement of selected PaRIS items or their derivatives at a more granular level (see Section 4).

PaRIS data and results have been used by other national authorities and stakeholders

Countries maximised the use of PaRIS data by making it available to other parties or preparing results for other national authorities and stakeholders on demand. In Belgium, Federaal Kenniscentrum – Centre fédéral d’expertise (KCE) gets access to the PaRIS data, as part of the broader reporting on the performance of Belgian healthcare system. In Greece, the National Statistical Service and Directorate of Health accessed the PaRIS data to conduct further analysis on areas concerning access and unmet needs. Spain and the United States published public use files for broader analysis and use of the PaRIS data at the national level. In the United States, the historical data from Medicare were linkable to the PaRIS data providing 4 000 analytical variables, making it a significant source of information for researchers. In Portugal, the priority programmes on cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes have used PaRIS data in their annual reports. In Wales, the Health Board wants to use the data to assess strategic delivery. In addition, Wales provides access to researchers following a data access protocol and the team has prepared a Power-BI dashboard to facilitate the use of results by other stakeholders.

Australia created a secure, purpose‑built online practitioner portal featuring an interactive dashboard. This provided participating practices with benchmarked feedback based on the aggregated results of their patient cohort, supporting local interpretation and quality improvement. A general practice that participated in the PaRIS Survey used the results from its patient cohort to strengthen team-based care, improve co‑ordination with external providers, and improve communication with patients about medication management and care plans.

From collection to use of PaRIS data and results

Participating countries in Cycle 1 have put extensive efforts to communicate and disseminate PaRIS results to their national audience and more broadly. Policy briefs, technical papers, academic articles, national policy dialogues as well as tailored targeted outreach to key stakeholders has been useful for the dissemination of findings and raising awareness of PaRIS and broader patient-reported measurement. All these activities form the first step in reaching the overall PaRIS goal of making healthcare systems more people centred.

However, the translation from data to health policy is not automatic, even though it is often seen as the natural next step. The next section outlines how countries have been using or planning to use PaRIS data and results for health policy and practice.