1
|
Kogetsu A, Isono M, Aikyo T, Furuta J, Goto D, Hamakawa N, Hide M, Hori R, Ikeda N, Inoi K, Kawagoe N, Kubota T, Manabe S, Matsumura Y, Matsuyama K, Nakai T, Nakao I, Saito Y, Senoo M, Takahashi MP, Takeda T, Takei M, Tamai K, Tanaka A, Torashima Y, Tsuchida Y, Yamasaki C, Yamamoto BA, Kato K. Enhancing evidence-informed policymaking in medicine and healthcare: stakeholder involvement in the Commons Project for rare diseases in Japan. RESEARCH INVOLVEMENT AND ENGAGEMENT 2023; 9:107. [PMID: 38031179 PMCID: PMC10685685 DOI: 10.1186/s40900-023-00515-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/21/2023] [Accepted: 11/14/2023] [Indexed: 12/01/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Atsushi Kogetsu
- Department of Biomedical Ethics and Public Policy, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Suita, Japan.
| | - Moeko Isono
- Department of Biomedical Ethics and Public Policy, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Suita, Japan
| | - Tatsuki Aikyo
- Department of Biomedical Ethics and Public Policy, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Suita, Japan
- School of Medicine, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
| | - Junichi Furuta
- Department of Medical Informatics and Management, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
| | - Dai Goto
- Department of Stem Cell Therapy Science, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan
| | - Nao Hamakawa
- Department of Biomedical Ethics and Public Policy, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Suita, Japan
| | - Michihiro Hide
- Department of Dermatology, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
- Japanese Society of Tuberous Sclerosis Complex Family Net Committee, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Risa Hori
- Department of Dermatology, Hiroshima Citizens Hospital, Hiroshima, Japan
| | - Noriko Ikeda
- Commons Project, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan
| | - Keiko Inoi
- NPO Japan Marfan Association, Kuwana, Mie, Japan
| | - Naomi Kawagoe
- MECP2 Duplication Syndrome Family Association, Suita, Osaka, Japan
| | - Tomoya Kubota
- Department of Clinical Laboratory and Biomedical Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan
| | - Shirou Manabe
- Department of Transformative System for Medical Information, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan
| | - Yasushi Matsumura
- Osaka National Hospital, Osaka, Japan
- Department of Medical Informatics, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan
| | | | - Tomoko Nakai
- Japanese Huntington's Disease Network (JHDN), Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Yuki Saito
- Commons Project, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan
| | - Midori Senoo
- NPO Myotonic Dystrophy Patients' Group of Japan (DM-Family), Tokyo, Japan
| | - Masanori P Takahashi
- Department of Clinical Laboratory and Biomedical Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan
| | - Toshihiro Takeda
- Department of Medical Informatics, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan
| | - Megumi Takei
- Japanese Society of Tuberous Sclerosis Complex Family Net Committee, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Katsuto Tamai
- Department of Stem Cell Therapy Science, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan
| | - Akio Tanaka
- Department of Dermatology, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
| | - Yasuhiro Torashima
- Department of Surgery, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki, Japan
| | - Yuya Tsuchida
- NPO Myotonic Dystrophy Patients' Group of Japan (DM-Family), Tokyo, Japan
| | - Chisato Yamasaki
- Department of Biomedical Ethics and Public Policy, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Suita, Japan
- Center for Intractable Diseases and ImmunoGenomics (CiDIC), Health and Nutrition (NIBIOHN), National Institutes of Biomedical Innovation, Ibaraki, Osaka, Japan
| | - Beverley Anne Yamamoto
- HAEJ, Non-Profit Patient Organization for Hereditary Angioedema in Japan, Kakogawa, Hyogo, Japan
- HAEi, Non-Profit International Patient Organization for Hereditary Angioedema Registered in the US, Fairfax City, VA, USA
- Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan
| | - Kazuto Kato
- Department of Biomedical Ethics and Public Policy, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Suita, Japan.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gilfoyle M, Melro C, Koskinas E, Salsberg J. 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. BMJ Open 2023; 13:e072918. [PMID: 37832980 PMCID: PMC10582988 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072918] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2023] [Accepted: 09/28/2023] [Indexed: 10/15/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Meghan Gilfoyle
- School of Medicine, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
- McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Elena Koskinas
- School of Medicine, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
| | - Jon Salsberg
- School of Medicine, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Vanstone M, Canfield C, Evans C, Leslie M, Levasseur MA, MacNeil M, Pahwa M, Panday J, Rowland P, Taneja S, Tripp L, You J, Abelson J. Towards conceptualizing patients as partners in health systems: a systematic review and descriptive synthesis. Health Res Policy Syst 2023; 21:12. [PMID: 36698200 PMCID: PMC9876419 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-022-00954-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2022] [Accepted: 12/23/2022] [Indexed: 01/26/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Meredith Vanstone
- grid.25073.330000 0004 1936 8227Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1 Canada ,grid.25073.330000 0004 1936 8227Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1 Canada
| | - Carolyn Canfield
- Patient Advisors Network (PAN), Toronto, ON Canada ,grid.17091.3e0000 0001 2288 9830Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, 5950 University Boulevard, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3 Canada
| | - Cara Evans
- grid.25073.330000 0004 1936 8227Health Policy PhD Program, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1 Canada
| | - Myles Leslie
- grid.22072.350000 0004 1936 7697School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, 906 8Th Avenue S.W., Calgary, AB T2P1H9 Canada
| | | | - Maggie MacNeil
- grid.25073.330000 0004 1936 8227Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1 Canada
| | - Manisha Pahwa
- grid.25073.330000 0004 1936 8227Health Policy PhD Program, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1 Canada ,grid.419887.b0000 0001 0747 0732Occupational Cancer Research Centre, Cancer Care Ontario, Ontario Health, 505 University Avenue, Toronto, ON Canada
| | - Janelle Panday
- grid.25073.330000 0004 1936 8227Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1 Canada
| | - Paula Rowland
- grid.17063.330000 0001 2157 2938Wilson Centre and Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Canada 1 King’s College Circle, Toronto, ON M5S 1A8 Canada
| | - Shipra Taneja
- grid.25073.330000 0004 1936 8227Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1 Canada
| | - Laura Tripp
- grid.25073.330000 0004 1936 8227Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1 Canada
| | - Jeonghwa You
- grid.25073.330000 0004 1936 8227Health Policy PhD Program, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1 Canada
| | - Julia Abelson
- grid.25073.330000 0004 1936 8227Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1 Canada ,grid.25073.330000 0004 1936 8227Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1 Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Rzadkiewicz M, Jaworski M, Włodarczyk D. The Brave Patient after 80-Satisfaction with Visit and Individual Determinants of Proactive Patient Attitude among the Oldest General Practice Users. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2022; 19:ijerph19106214. [PMID: 35627751 PMCID: PMC9140419 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19106214] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2022] [Revised: 05/17/2022] [Accepted: 05/17/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marta Rzadkiewicz
- Department of Health Psychology, Medical University of Warsaw, 01-575 Warsaw, Poland;
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +48-22-116-9211
| | - Mariusz Jaworski
- Department of Education and Research in Health Sciences, Medical University of Warsaw, 01-575 Warsaw, Poland;
| | - Dorota Włodarczyk
- Department of Health Psychology, Medical University of Warsaw, 01-575 Warsaw, Poland;
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Fadlallah R, Daher N, El-Harakeh A, Hammam R, Brax H, Bou Karroum L, Lopes LC, Arnous G, Kassamany I, Baltayan S, Harb A, Lotfi T, El-Jardali F, Akl EA. Approaches to prioritising primary health research: a scoping review. BMJ Glob Health 2022; 7:bmjgh-2021-007465. [PMID: 35501067 PMCID: PMC9062777 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007465] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2021] [Accepted: 02/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Racha Fadlallah
- Department of Health Management and Policy, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Najla Daher
- Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Amena El-Harakeh
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Rima Hammam
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Hneine Brax
- Faculty of Medicine, Université Saint-Joseph, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Lama Bou Karroum
- Department of Health Management and Policy, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | | | - Ghida Arnous
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Inas Kassamany
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Stephanie Baltayan
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Aya Harb
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Tamara Lotfi
- Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Fadi El-Jardali
- Department of Health Management and Policy, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Elie A Akl
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon .,Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Rustage K, Crawshaw A, Majeed-Hajaj S, Deal A, Nellums L, Ciftci Y, Fuller SS, Goldsmith L, Friedland JS, Hargreaves S. Participatory approaches in the development of health interventions for migrants: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e053678. [PMID: 34697122 PMCID: PMC8548676 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053678] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
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).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kieran Rustage
- Migrant Health Research Group, Institute for Infection and Immunity, St George's University of London, London, UK
| | - Alison Crawshaw
- Migrant Health Research Group, Institute for Infection and Immunity, St George's University of London, London, UK
| | | | - Anna Deal
- Migrant Health Research Group, Institute for Infection and Immunity, St George's University of London, London, UK
- Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Laura Nellums
- Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | | | - Sebastian S Fuller
- Migrant Health Research Group, Institute for Infection and Immunity, St George's University of London, London, UK
| | - Lucy Goldsmith
- Migrant Health Research Group, Institute for Infection and Immunity, St George's University of London, London, UK
- Population Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, UK
| | - Jon S Friedland
- Migrant Health Research Group, Institute for Infection and Immunity, St George's University of London, London, UK
| | - Sally Hargreaves
- Migrant Health Research Group, Institute for Infection and Immunity, St George's University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Kornelsen J, Carthew C, Míguez K, Taylor M, Bodroghy C, Petrunia K, Roberts D. Rural citizen-patient priorities for healthcare in British Columbia, Canada: findings from a mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv Res 2021; 21:987. [PMID: 34537027 PMCID: PMC8449919 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06933-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2021] [Accepted: 08/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jude Kornelsen
- Centre for Rural Health Research, Department of Family Practice, University of British, 3rd Floor David Strangway Building, University of British Columbia, 5950 University Boulevard, British Columbia, V6T 1Z3, Vancouver, Canada.
| | - Christine Carthew
- Centre for Rural Health Research, Department of Family Practice, University of British, 3rd Floor David Strangway Building, University of British Columbia, 5950 University Boulevard, British Columbia, V6T 1Z3, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Kayla Míguez
- Centre for Rural Health Research, Department of Family Practice, University of British, 3rd Floor David Strangway Building, University of British Columbia, 5950 University Boulevard, British Columbia, V6T 1Z3, Vancouver, Canada
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Gens-Barberà M, Hernández-Vidal N, Vidal-Esteve E, Mengíbar-García Y, Hospital-Guardiola I, Oya-Girona EM, Bejarano-Romero F, Castro-Muniain C, Satué-Gracia EM, Rey-Reñones C, Martín-Luján FM. Analysis of Patient Safety Incidents in Primary Care Reported in an Electronic Registry Application. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2021; 18:8941. [PMID: 34501530 PMCID: PMC8430626 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18178941] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2021] [Revised: 08/13/2021] [Accepted: 08/17/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Montserrat Gens-Barberà
- Quality and Patient Safety Central Functional Unit, Gerència d’Atenció Primària Camp de Tarragona, Institut Català de la Salut, 43005 Tarragona, Spain; (N.H.-V.); (E.V.-E.); (Y.M.-G.); (I.H.-G.); (E.M.O.-G.); (F.B.-R.); (C.C.-M.)
| | - Núria Hernández-Vidal
- Quality and Patient Safety Central Functional Unit, Gerència d’Atenció Primària Camp de Tarragona, Institut Català de la Salut, 43005 Tarragona, Spain; (N.H.-V.); (E.V.-E.); (Y.M.-G.); (I.H.-G.); (E.M.O.-G.); (F.B.-R.); (C.C.-M.)
| | - Elisa Vidal-Esteve
- Quality and Patient Safety Central Functional Unit, Gerència d’Atenció Primària Camp de Tarragona, Institut Català de la Salut, 43005 Tarragona, Spain; (N.H.-V.); (E.V.-E.); (Y.M.-G.); (I.H.-G.); (E.M.O.-G.); (F.B.-R.); (C.C.-M.)
| | - Yolanda Mengíbar-García
- Quality and Patient Safety Central Functional Unit, Gerència d’Atenció Primària Camp de Tarragona, Institut Català de la Salut, 43005 Tarragona, Spain; (N.H.-V.); (E.V.-E.); (Y.M.-G.); (I.H.-G.); (E.M.O.-G.); (F.B.-R.); (C.C.-M.)
| | - Immaculada Hospital-Guardiola
- Quality and Patient Safety Central Functional Unit, Gerència d’Atenció Primària Camp de Tarragona, Institut Català de la Salut, 43005 Tarragona, Spain; (N.H.-V.); (E.V.-E.); (Y.M.-G.); (I.H.-G.); (E.M.O.-G.); (F.B.-R.); (C.C.-M.)
- Primary Health-Care Centre, Institut Català de la Salut, 43005 Tarragona, Spain
| | - Eva M. Oya-Girona
- Quality and Patient Safety Central Functional Unit, Gerència d’Atenció Primària Camp de Tarragona, Institut Català de la Salut, 43005 Tarragona, Spain; (N.H.-V.); (E.V.-E.); (Y.M.-G.); (I.H.-G.); (E.M.O.-G.); (F.B.-R.); (C.C.-M.)
- Primary Health-Care Centre, Institut Català de la Salut, 43005 Tarragona, Spain
| | - Ferran Bejarano-Romero
- Quality and Patient Safety Central Functional Unit, Gerència d’Atenció Primària Camp de Tarragona, Institut Català de la Salut, 43005 Tarragona, Spain; (N.H.-V.); (E.V.-E.); (Y.M.-G.); (I.H.-G.); (E.M.O.-G.); (F.B.-R.); (C.C.-M.)
- Pharmacy Unit, Gerència d’Atenció Primària Camp de Tarragona, Institut Català de la Salut, 43005 Tarragona, Spain
| | - Carles Castro-Muniain
- Quality and Patient Safety Central Functional Unit, Gerència d’Atenció Primària Camp de Tarragona, Institut Català de la Salut, 43005 Tarragona, Spain; (N.H.-V.); (E.V.-E.); (Y.M.-G.); (I.H.-G.); (E.M.O.-G.); (F.B.-R.); (C.C.-M.)
| | - Eva M. Satué-Gracia
- Research Support Unit Tarragona-Reus, Institut Universitari D’investigació en L’atenció Primària Jordi Gol, (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Institut Català de la Salut, 43202 Reus, Spain; (E.M.S.-G.); (C.R.-R.); (F.M.M.-L.)
| | - Cristina Rey-Reñones
- Research Support Unit Tarragona-Reus, Institut Universitari D’investigació en L’atenció Primària Jordi Gol, (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Institut Català de la Salut, 43202 Reus, Spain; (E.M.S.-G.); (C.R.-R.); (F.M.M.-L.)
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 43201 Reus, Spain
| | - Francisco M. Martín-Luján
- Research Support Unit Tarragona-Reus, Institut Universitari D’investigació en L’atenció Primària Jordi Gol, (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Institut Català de la Salut, 43202 Reus, Spain; (E.M.S.-G.); (C.R.-R.); (F.M.M.-L.)
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 43201 Reus, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
McCarron TL, Clement F, Rasiah J, Moran C, Moffat K, Gonzalez A, Wasylak T, Santana M. Patients as partners in health research: A scoping review. Health Expect 2021; 24:1378-1390. [PMID: 34153165 PMCID: PMC8369093 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13272] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2020] [Revised: 04/10/2021] [Accepted: 04/15/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tamara L. McCarron
- The Department Community Health SciencesCalgaryABCanada
- O’Brien Institute for Public HealthCalgaryABCanada
| | - Fiona Clement
- The Department Community Health SciencesCalgaryABCanada
- O’Brien Institute for Public HealthCalgaryABCanada
| | - Jananee Rasiah
- Faculty of Nursing3‐141 Edmonton Clinic Health Academy (ECHA)University of AlbertaEdmontonABCanada
| | - Chelsea Moran
- The Department PsychologyUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryABCanada
| | - Karen Moffat
- The Department Community Health SciencesCalgaryABCanada
- O’Brien Institute for Public HealthCalgaryABCanada
- Patient PartnerCalgaryABCanada
| | - Andrea Gonzalez
- The Department Community Health SciencesCalgaryABCanada
- O’Brien Institute for Public HealthCalgaryABCanada
| | - Tracy Wasylak
- Alberta Health ServicesCalgaryABCanada
- Faculty of NursingUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryABCanada
| | - Maria Santana
- The Department Community Health SciencesCalgaryABCanada
- O’Brien Institute for Public HealthCalgaryABCanada
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Rybarczyk-Szwajkowska A, Rydlewska-Liszkowska I. Priority Setting in the Polish Health Care System According to Patients' Perspective. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2021; 18:ijerph18031178. [PMID: 33525746 PMCID: PMC7908543 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18031178] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/08/2020] [Revised: 01/12/2021] [Accepted: 01/25/2021] [Indexed: 12/03/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
11
|
Bhati DK, Fitzgerald M, Kendall C, Dahrouge S. Patients' engagement in primary care research: a case study in a Canadian context. RESEARCH INVOLVEMENT AND ENGAGEMENT 2020; 6:65. [PMID: 33292731 PMCID: PMC7604947 DOI: 10.1186/s40900-020-00238-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2020] [Accepted: 10/07/2020] [Indexed: 05/31/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Claire Kendall
- Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON Canada
- Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON Canada
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON Canada
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON Canada
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON Canada
| | - Simone Dahrouge
- Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON Canada
- Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON Canada
| |
Collapse
|