How to prevent and avoid barriers in co-production with family carers living in rural and remote area: an Italian case study

Transforming Integrated Care Through Co-production: A Systematic Review Using Meta-ethnography

Introduction

There is a requirement for health and care systems and services to work on an equitable basis with people who use and provide integrated care. In response, co-production has become essential in the design and transformation of services. Globally, an array of approaches have been implemented to achieve this. This unique review explores multi-context and multi-method examples of co-production in integrated care using an exceptional combination of methods.

Aim

To review and synthesise evidence that examines how co-production with service users, unpaid carers and members of staff can affect the design and transformation of integrated care services.

Methods

Systematic review using meta-ethnography with input from a patient and public involvement (PPI) co-production advisory group. Meta-ethnography can generate theories by interpreting patterns between studies set in different contexts. Nine academic and four grey literature databases were searched for publications between 2012-2022. Data were extracted, analysed, translated and interpreted using the seven phases of meta-ethnography and PPI.

Findings

A total of 2,097 studies were identified. 10 met the inclusion criteria. Studies demonstrated a variety of integrated care provisions for diverse populations. Co-production was most successful through person-centred design, innovative planning, and collaboration. Key impacts on service transformation were structural changes, accessibility, and acceptability of service delivery. The methods applied organically drew out new interpretations, namely a novel cyclic framework for application within integrated care.

Conclusion

Effective co-production requires a process with a well-defined focus. Implementing co-delivery, with peer support, facilitates service user involvement to be embedded at a higher level on the 'ladder of co-production'. An additional step on the ladder is proposed; a cyclic co-delivery framework. This innovative and operational development has potential to enable better-sustained person-centred integrated care services.

Family caregivers' involvement in caring for frail older family members using welfare technology: a qualitative study of home care in transition

BACKGROUND

Demographic, economic and organisational changes challenge home care services. Increased use of welfare technology and involvement of family members as co-producers of care are political initiatives to meet these challenges. However, these initiatives also involve ethical aspects.

METHOD

The aim of this qualitative study was to explore family caregivers' experience of involvement and possible ethical aspects of caring for frail older family members receiving home care services supported by welfare technology. This study used a qualitative explorative and descriptive design within a phenomenological-hermeneutical approach. Sixteen interviews with eighteen family caregivers were conducted. The participants were sons, daughters, siblings and spouses of frail older people receiving home care services with the support of welfare technology. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. The COREQ checklist was used.

RESULTS

The analysis led to five main themes. First, the family caregivers' experienced caring as meaningful but increasingly demanding concerning the changes in home care services. Second, they experienced a change in relationships, roles, tasks, and responsibilities related to more family involvement and the use of welfare technology. This also challenged their sense of autonomy. However, welfare technology helped them deal with responsibilities, especially safety. The family caregivers requested early involvement, dialogue for care decisions, more cooperation and support from health professionals. Third, the participants experienced that health professionals decided the conditions for co-production without discussion. Their need for information and knowledge about welfare technology were not met. Fourth, the family caregivers felt that the health professionals did not adequately recognise their unique knowledge of the care receiver and did not use this knowledge for customising the welfare technology to the care receiver and their families. Fifth, the family caregivers expressed concern about service and welfare technology inequality in home care services.

CONCLUSIONS

Co-production in the involvement of family caregivers in care is still not an integral part of home care service. Welfare technology was appreciated, but the family caregivers called for early involvement to ensure successful and safe implementation and use. More attention needs to be given to ethical concerns about the change in relations, transfer of tasks and responsibility, and risk of inequality.