What matters most to patients about primary healthcare: mixed-methods patient priority setting exercises within the PREFeR (PRioritiEs For Research) project

Enhancing evidence-informed policymaking in medicine and healthcare: stakeholder involvement in the Commons Project for rare diseases in Japan

BACKGROUND

Although stakeholder involvement in policymaking is attracting attention in the fields of medicine and healthcare, a practical methodology has not yet been established. Rare-disease policy, specifically research priority setting for the allocation of limited research resources, is an area where evidence generation through stakeholder involvement is expected to be effective. We generated evidence for rare-disease policymaking through stakeholder involvement and explored effective collaboration among stakeholders.

METHODS

We constructed a space called 'Evidence-generating Commons', where patients, family members, researchers, and former policymakers can share their knowledge and experiences and engage in continual deliberations on evidence generation. Ten rare diseases were consequently represented. In the 'Commons', 25 consecutive workshops were held predominantly online, from 2019 to 2021. These workshops focused on (1) clarification of difficulties faced by rare-disease patients, (2) development and selection of criteria for priority setting, and (3) priority setting through the application of the criteria. For the first step, an on-site workshop using sticky notes was held. The data were analysed based on KJ method. For the second and third steps, workshops on specific themes were held to build consensus. The workshop agendas and methods were modified based on participants' feedback.

RESULTS

The 'Commons' was established with 43 participants, resulting in positive effects such as capacity building, opportunities for interactions, mutual understanding, and empathy among the participants. The difficulties faced by patients with rare diseases were classified into 10 categories. Seven research topics were identified as priority issues to be addressed including 'impediments to daily life', 'financial burden', 'anxiety', and 'burden of hospital visits'. This was performed by synthesising the results of the application of the two criteria that were particularly important to strengthen future research on rare diseases. We also clarified high-priority research topics by using criteria valued more by patients and family members than by researchers and former policymakers, and criteria with specific perspectives.

CONCLUSION

We generated evidence for policymaking in the field of rare diseases. This study's insights into stakeholder involvement can enhance evidence-informed policymaking. We engaged in comprehensive discussions with policymakers regarding policy implementation and planned analysis of the participants' experiences in this project.

Recruitment of patients, carers and members of the public to advisory boards, groups and panels in public and patient involved health research: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this scoping review are to: (1) identify the distribution of and context of the recruitment strategies used, (2) explore the facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical issues of the identified recruitment strategies, (3) distinguish the varying terminology for involvement (ie, panels, boards, individual) and (4) determine if the individual recruitment strategies used were to address issues of representation or bias.

DESIGN

A scoping review.

SETTING

This scoping review follows the framework by Peters et al. Seven electronic databases were explored including Scopus, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO (conducted July 2021). The search strategy was codeveloped among the research team, PPI research experts and a faculty librarian. Two independent reviewers screened articles by title and abstract and then at full text based on predetermined criteria.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Explore recruitment strategies used, facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical issues of the identified recruitment strategies. Identify terminology for involvement. Explore recruitment strategies used to address issues of representation or bias.

RESULTS

The final sample was from 51 sources. A large portion of the extracted empirical literature had a clinical focus (37%, n=13) but was not a randomised control trial. The most common recruitment strategies used were human networks (78%, n=40), such as word of mouth, foundation affiliation, existing networks, clinics or personal contacts. Within the reviewed literature, there was a lack of discussion pertaining to facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical considerations of recruitment strategies was apparent. Finally, 41% (n=21) of studies employed or proposed recruitment strategies or considerations to address issues of representation or bias.

CONCLUSION

We conclude with four key recommendations that researchers can use to better understand appropriate routes to meaningfully involve patients, carers and members of the public to cocreate the evidence informing their care.

Towards conceptualizing patients as partners in health systems: a systematic review and descriptive synthesis

BACKGROUND

With the sharp increase in the involvement of patients (including family and informal caregivers) as active participants, collaborators, advisors and decision-makers in health systems, a new role has emerged: the patient partner. The role of patient partner differs from other forms of patient engagement in its longitudinal and bidirectional nature. This systematic review describes extant work on how patient partners are conceptualized and engaged in health systems. In doing so, it furthers the understanding of the role and activities of patient partners, and best practices for future patient partnership activities.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of peer-reviewed literature published in English or French that describes patient partner roles between 2000 and 2021 in any country or sector of the health system. We used a broad search strategy to capture descriptions of longitudinal patient engagement that may not have used words such as "partner" or "advisor".

RESULTS

A total of 506 eligible papers were identified, representing patient partnership activities in mostly high-income countries. These studies overwhelmingly described patient partnership in health research. We identified clusters of literature about patient partnership in cancer and mental health. The literature is saturated with single-site descriptive studies of patient partnership on individual projects or initiatives. There is a lack of work synthesizing impacts, facilitating factors and outcomes of patient partnership in healthcare.

CONCLUSIONS

There is not yet a consolidated understanding of the role, activities or impacts of patient partners. Advancement of the literature has been stymied by a lack of consistently used terminology. The literature is ready to move beyond single-site descriptions, and synthesis of existing pockets of high-quality theoretical work will be essential to this evolution.

The Brave Patient after 80-Satisfaction with Visit and Individual Determinants of Proactive Patient Attitude among the Oldest General Practice Users

Background. A patient’s adherence to a course of treatment depends on the individual’s activation, the quality of patient–clinician relations, attitudes, self-efficacy, or positive emotions. Patient proactive attitude (PAA) is seldom researched among the oldest healthcare users. This study was designed to identify predictors of PAA toward health and treatment among community-dwelling general practice patients aged 80+, and was based on a PRACTA (PRomoting ACTive Aging) project. Methods. Patients (n = 658), aged 80+ visiting a general practitioner (GP) filled in the PRACTA attitude toward treatment and health scale and the PRACTA self-efficacy scale questionnaires. Sociodemographic factors, self-reported health status, and satisfaction with the visit were analyzed as independent factors. Results. Attitudes toward treatment and health scores were predicted by marital status, living alone or not alone, hospitalization the prior year, level of impairment, and satisfaction with visit. However, some differences were observed depending on the device’s subscale. Self-efficacy score was determined by marital status, living alone or not alone, prior hospitalization, and satisfaction with visit. We did not find an effect of age or gender on PAA. Patient satisfaction with visit was the strongest predictor of all PAA dimensions. Conclusion. Higher visit satisfaction helps to retain a PAA among seniors 80+. Screening questions about living situation, marital and functional status, emotional state, and recent history of hospitalization might help GPs additionally anticipate PAA level and adjust their actions accordingly.

Approaches to prioritising primary health research: a scoping review

Objective

To systematically identify and describe approaches to prioritise primary research topics in any health-related area.

Methods

We searched Medline and CINAHL databases and Google Scholar. Teams of two reviewers screened studies and extracted data in duplicate and independently. We synthesised the information across the included approaches by developing common categorisation of relevant concepts.

Results

Of 44 392 citations, 30 articles reporting on 25 approaches were included, addressing the following fields: health in general (n=9), clinical (n=10), health policy and systems (n=10), public health (n=6) and health service research (n=5) (10 addressed more than 1 field). The approaches proposed the following aspects to be addressed in the prioritisation process: situation analysis/ environmental scan, methods for generation of initial list of topics, use of prioritisation criteria, stakeholder engagement, ranking process/technique, dissemination and implementation, revision and appeal mechanism, and monitoring and evaluation. Twenty-two approaches proposed involving stakeholders in the priority setting process. The most commonly proposed stakeholder category was ‘researchers/academia’ (n=17, 77%) followed by ‘healthcare providers’ (n=16, 73%). Fifteen of the approaches proposed a list of criteria for determining research priorities. We developed a common framework of 28 prioritisation criteria clustered into nine domains. The criterion most frequently mentioned by the identified approaches was ‘health burden’ (n=12, 80%), followed by ‘availability of resources’ (n=11, 73%).

Conclusion

We identified and described 25 prioritisation approaches for primary research topics in any health-related area. Findings highlight the need for greater participation of potential users (eg, policy-makers and the general public) and incorporation of equity as part of the prioritisation process. Findings can guide the work of researchers, policy-makers and funders seeking to conduct or fund primary health research. More importantly, the findings should be used to enhance a more coordinated approach to prioritising health research to inform decision making at all levels.

Participatory approaches in the development of health interventions for migrants: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Analysis of participatory approaches to developing health interventions for migrants and how approaches embody core participatory principles of inclusivity and democracy.

DESIGN

A systematic review of original articles. Electronic searches within the databases MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and PsychINFO (from inception-November 2020).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Original peer-reviewed articles reporting research to develop and implement a health intervention for migrants, incorporating participatory approaches. We defined migrants as foreign-born individuals. Only articles reporting the full research cycle (inception, design, implementation, analysis, evaluation, dissemination) were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

We extracted information related to who was involved in research (migrants or other non-academic stakeholders), the research stage at which they were involved (inception, design, implementation, analysis, evaluation, dissemination), the method of their involvement and how this aligned with the core principles of participatory research-categorising studies as exhibiting active or pseudo (including proxy and indirect) participation.

RESULTS

1793 publications were screened, of which 28 were included in our analysis. We found substantial variation in the application of participatory approaches in designing health interventions targeting migrants: across 168 individual research stages analysed across the 28 studies, we recorded 46 instances of active participation of migrants, 30 instances of proxy participation and 24 instances of indirect participation. All studies involved non-academic stakeholders in at least one stage of the research, only two studies exhibited evidence of active participation of migrants across all research stages. Evidence is limited due to the variability of terms and approaches used.

CONCLUSIONS

Important shortfalls in the meaningful inclusion of migrants in developing health interventions exist, suggesting a more rigorous and standardised approach is warranted to better define and deliver participatory research and improve quality.

REGISTRATION

This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines and is registered on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/2bnz5).

Rural citizen-patient priorities for healthcare in British Columbia, Canada: findings from a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

The challenge of including citizen-patient voices in healthcare planning is exacerbated in rural communities by regional variation in priorities and a historical lack of attention to rural healthcare needs. This paper aims to address this deficit by presenting findings from a mixed methods study to understand rural patient and community priorities for healthcare.

METHODS

We conducted a provincial survey of rural citizens-patients across British Columbia, Canada to understand their most pressing healthcare needs, supplemented by semi-structured interviews. Survey and interview participants were asked to articulate, in their own words, their communities' most pressing healthcare needs, to explain the importance of these priorities to their communities, and to offer possible solutions to address these challenges. Open-text survey responses and interview data were analyzed thematically to elicit priorities of the data and their significance to answer the research questions.

RESULTS

We received 1,287 survey responses from rural citizens-patients across BC, 1,158 of which were considered complete. We conducted nine telephone interviews with rural citizens-patients. Participants stressed the importance of local access to care, including emergency services, maternity care, seniors care, specialist services and mental health and substance use care. A lack of access to primary care services was the most pronounced gap. Inadequate local health services presented geographic, financial and social barriers to accessing care, led to feelings of vulnerability among rural patients, resulted in treatment avoidance, and deterred community growth.

CONCLUSIONS

Two essential prongs of an integration framework for the inclusion of citizen-patient voices in healthcare planning include merging patient priorities with population needs and system-embedded accountability for the inclusion of patient and community priorities.

Analysis of Patient Safety Incidents in Primary Care Reported in an Electronic Registry Application

OBJECTIVES

(1) To describe the epidemiology of patient safety (PS) incidents registered in an electronic notification system in primary care (PC) health centres; (2) to define a risk map; and (3) to identify the critical areas where intervention is needed.

DESIGN

Descriptive analytical study of incidents reported from 1 January to 31 December 2018, on the TPSC Cloud™ platform (The Patient Safety Company) accessible from the corporate website (Intranet) of the regional public health service.

SETTING

24 Catalan Institute of Health PC health centres of the Tarragona region (Spain).

PARTICIPANTS

Professionals from the PC health centres and a Patient Safety Functional Unit.

MEASUREMENTS

Data obtained from records voluntarily submitted to an electronic, standardised and anonymised form. Data recorded: healthcare unit, notifier, type of incident, risk matrix, causal and contributing factors, preventability, level of resolution and improvement actions.

RESULTS

A total of 1544 reports were reviewed and 1129 PS incidents were analysed: 25.0% of incidents did not reach the patient; 66.5% reached the patient without causing harm, and 8.5% caused adverse events. Nurses provided half of the reports (48.5%), while doctors reported more adverse events (70.8%; p < 0.01). Of the 96 adverse events, 46.9% only required observation, 34.4% caused temporary damage that required treatment, 13.5% required (or prolonged) hospitalization, and 5.2% caused severe permanent damage and/or a situation close to death. Notably, 99.2% were considered preventable. The main critical areas were: communication (27.8%), clinical-administrative management (25.1%), care delivery (23.5%) and medicines (18.4%); few incidents were related to diagnosis (3.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

PS incident notification applications are adequate for reporting incidents and adverse events associated with healthcare. Approximately 75% and 10% of incidents reach the patient and cause some damage, respectively, and most cases are considered preventable. Adequate and strengthened risk management of critical areas is required to improve PS.

Patients as partners in health research: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The role of patient involvement in health research has evolved over the past decade. Despite efforts to engage patients as partners, the role is not well understood. We undertook this review to understand the engagement practices of patients who assume roles as partners in health research.

METHODS

Using a recognized methodological approach, two academic databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE) and grey literature sources were searched. Findings were organized into one of the three higher levels of engagement, described by the Patient and Researcher Engagement framework developed by Manafo. We examined and quantified the supportive strategies used during involvement, used thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke and themed the purpose of engagement, and categorized the reported outcomes according to the CIHR Engagement Framework.

RESULTS

Out of 6621 records, 119 sources were included in the review. Thematic analysis of the purpose of engagement revealed five themes: documenting and advancing PPI, relevance of research, co-building, capacity building and impact on research. Improved research design was the most common reported outcome and the most common role for patient partners was as members of the research team, and the most commonly used strategy to support involvement was by meetings.

CONCLUSION

The evidence collected during this review advanced our understanding of the engagement of patients as research partners. As patient involvement becomes more mainstream, this knowledge will aid researchers and policy-makers in the development of approaches and tools to support engagement.

PATIENT/USER INVOLVEMENT

Patients led and conducted the grey literature search, including the synthesis and interpretation of the findings.

Priority Setting in the Polish Health Care System According to Patients' Perspective

Identification of health priorities is concerned with equitable distribution of resources and is an important part of strategic planning in the health care system. The aim of this article is to describe health priorities in the Polish health care system from the patients’ perspective. The study included 533 patients hospitalized in the Lodz region. The average age of the respondents was 48.5 years and one third (36.6%) had university education. Most of the respondents (64.9%) negatively assessed the functioning of the health care system in Poland. Most of them claimed the following aspects require improvements: financing health services (85.8%), determining priorities in health care (80.3%), the role of health insurance (80.3%), and medical education (70.8%). Over 70% of the respondents agreed the role of politicians in designing and implementing health system reforms should be limited. The fact that the respondents so negatively assessed the Polish health care system implies there is a need for full discussion on redefining health priorities.

Patients' engagement in primary care research: a case study in a Canadian context

Patient engagement in primary care research is an increasingly common requirement, as it helps make research more relevant to patients and therefore more valuable. However, there is limited evidence about the outcomes on engagement and actually how it affects research. In Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research has a Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR), which in 2016 funded Ontario's INSPIRE-PHC centre of excellence and its Patient Engagement Resource Centre (PERC). PERC conducted an online survey of the three INSPIRE-PHC studies that engaged patients to guide their research. We found that patient partners (PPs) were positive about their experience during research meetings, the value of collaboration, and the support that was provided. They were more involved in early stages of their research projects than in ongoing research activities. PPs valued their experience and also felt they had improved the research process and outcomes. This case study showed how PPs perceive their roles, but a more diverse group of PPs might have more differences in their experience. Background Patient engagement in primary care research is increasing and is now an expectation in many countries and funding agencies. In Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has mandated that patients be included as partners to guide the research process. Ontario's Patient Engagement Resource Centre (PERC) was established in 2016 by the INNOVATIONS STRENGTHENING PRIMARY HEALTH CARE THROUGH RESEARCH (INSPIRE-PHC), one of 12 centres of excellence in the province funded under the CIHR's Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) initiative. PERC's mission is to support the authentic engagement of patients in primary care research. The present case study examines patients' experience of engagement in INSPIRE-PHC research studies. Methods PERC conducted a web-based evaluation survey across the three INSPIRE-PHC studies that engaged patient partners (PPs). We used data collection tools developed by McMaster University (the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET)) and the Patient-Centred Outcomes Research Institute (Ways of Engaging- ENgagement ACtivity Tool (WE-ENACT)) to assess patient experience and areas of involvement. These included both closed- and open-ended questions. Results The quantitative data showed that PPs were positive about their experience during research meetings, the value of collaboration, and the support that was provided to facilitate engagement. Most of them were highly involved in the initial stages of their research projects but much less involved in operational activities. The qualitative findings showed that, overall, PPs valued their experience, felt prepared to contribute and that their contributions were welcomed. In particular, they considered that they had improved the research process and outcomes. The majority also reported that they had learned from the experience and found it valuable. Conclusions This case study shows that patients engaged in three primary care research studies found the experience to be positive and felt that they had contributed to the research. This study adds to the literature on the evaluation of patient engagement in primary health care research. However, a study of a more diverse sample of PPs might elucidate differences in experience that could enrich future patient engagement activities.