Dataset Information

A systematic review of dimensions evaluating patient experience in chronic illness.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Living with a chronic disease often means experiencing chronic treatments and regular multidisciplinary monitoring as well as a profound life-changing experience which may impact all aspects of a patients life. The patient experience of chronic disease is frequently assessed by patient reported measures (PRMs) which incorporate patients perspectives to better understand how illness, treatment and care impact the entirety of a patient's life. The purpose of this review was to collect and review different kinds of available PRM instruments validated for chronic patients, to produce an inventory of explored concepts in these questionnaires and to identify and classify all dimensions assessing chronic patients experience.

Methods

A systematic review of PRM instruments validated for chronic patients was conducted from three databases (Medline, the Cochrane library, and Psycinfo). Articles were selected after a double reading and questionnaires were classified according to their targeted concept. Then, all dimensions of the questionnaires were clustered into different categories.

Results

107 primary validation studies of PRM questionnaires were selected. Five kinds of instruments were recorded: 1) Questionnaires assessing health related quality of life or quality of life; 2) Instruments focusing on symptoms and functional status; 3) Instruments exploring patients' feelings and attitude about illness; 4) Questionnaires related to patients' experience of treatment or healthcare; 5) Instruments assessing patients attitudes about treatment or healthcare. Twelve categories of dimensions were obtained from these instruments.

Conclusions

This review provided an overview of some of the dimensions used to explore chronic patient experience. A large PRM diversity exists and none of the reviewed and selected questionnaires covered all identified categories of dimensions of patient experience of chronic disease. Furthermore, the definition of explored concepts varies widely among researchers and complex concepts often lack a clear definition in the reviewed articles. Before attempting to measure chronic patient experience, researchers should construct appropriate instruments focusing on well-defined concepts and dimensions encompassing patient's personal experience, attitude and adaptation to illness, treatment or healthcare.

SUBMITTER: Forestier B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6341593 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of dimensions evaluating patient experience in chronic illness.

Forestier Bastien B Anthoine Emmanuelle E Reguiai Ziad Z Fohrer Cécile C Blanchin Myriam M

Health and quality of life outcomes 20190121 1

<h4>Background</h4>Living with a chronic disease often means experiencing chronic treatments and regular multidisciplinary monitoring as well as a profound life-changing experience which may impact all aspects of a patients life. The patient experience of chronic disease is frequently assessed by patient reported measures (PRMs) which incorporate patients perspectives to better understand how illness, treatment and care impact the entirety of a patient's life. The purpose of this review was to c ...[more]

PMID: 30665417

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOne of the essential elements of a strategic approach to improving patients' experience is to measure and report on patients' experiences in real time. Real-time feedback (RTF) is increasingly being collected using digital technology; however, there are several factors that may influence the success of the digital system.ObjectiveThe aim of this review was to evaluate the digital maturity and patient acceptability of real-time patient experience feedback systems.MethodsWe systematically searched the following databases to identify papers that used digital systems to collect RTF: The Cochrane Library, Global Health, Health Management Information Consortium, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL. In addition, Google Scholar and gray literature were utilized. Studies were assessed on their digital maturity using a Digital Maturity Framework on the basis of the following 4 domains: capacity/resource, usage, interoperability, and impact. A total score of 4 indicated the highest level of digital maturity.ResultsRTF was collected primarily using touchscreens, tablets, and Web-based platforms. Implementation of digital systems showed acceptable response rates and generally positive views from patients and staff. Patient demographics according to RTF responses varied. An overrepresentation existed in females with a white predominance and in patients aged ?65 years. Of 13 eligible studies, none had digital systems that were deemed to be of the highest level of maturity. Three studies received a score of 3, 2, and 1, respectively. Four studies scored 0 points. While 7 studies demonstrated capacity/resource, 8 demonstrated impact. None of the studies demonstrated interoperability in their digital systems.ConclusionsPatients and staff alike are willing to engage in RTF delivered using digital technology, thereby disrupting previous paper-based feedback. However, a lack of emphasis on digital maturity may lead to ineffective RTF, thwarting improvement efforts. Therefore, given the potential benefits of RTF, health care services should ensure that their digital systems deliver across the digital maturity continuum.

Project description:Objective: Chronic physical illness affects not only patients but also their partners. Dyadic coping (DC)-the ways couples cope in dealing with a stressor such as chronic illness-has received increased attention over the last three decades. The aim of the current study was to summarize the state of research on DC in couples with chronic physical illnesses. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies published between 1990 and 2020, assessing DC in couples affected by severe physical illnesses. We used DC and related search terms for the literature search in Psycinfo, Psyndex, and Medline. Five thousand three hundred thirty studies were identified in three electronic databases and 49 of these were included in the review (5,440 individuals reported on 2,820 dyads). We excluded studies on cancer, cardiovascular disease, and multiple sclerosis because of existing reviews in the respective fields. Half of the studies included were on diabetes. Other studies were on arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cystic fibrosis, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), Huntington's disease, lupus erythematosus, Parkinson's disease, renal diseases, stroke, and endometriosis. Two raters extracted data using a predefined protocol, including study quality. Results were collated in a narrative synthesis organized by illness and DC operationalization. Results: Overall, DC was associated with beneficial outcomes in physical health, well-being, and relationship satisfaction. Differential effects became apparent for certain chronic conditions potentially depending on certain disease characteristics, such as early-onset, sudden-onset, or life-threatening conditions. Conclusion: Facing challenges together as a couple seemed indispensable for adapting to a diverse range of demands related to chronic illnesses with some specific demands of particular chronic diseases. There is a need for the development of truly dyadic interventions with an eye on the specific challenges of the various chronic conditions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The older adult population (65 years or older) in the United States is growing, and it is important for communities to consider ways to support the aging population. Patient portals and electronic personal health records (ePHRs) are technologies that could better serve populations with the highest health care needs, such as older adults. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to assess the existing research landscape related to patient portal and ePHR use and experience among older adults and to understand the benefits and barriers to older adults' use and adoption of patient portals and ePHRs. METHODS:We searched six pertinent bibliographic databases for papers, published from 2006 to 2016 and written in English, that focused on adults 60 years or older and their use of or experience with patient portals or ePHRs. We adapted preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to review papers based on exclusion and inclusion criteria. We then applied thematic analysis to identify key themes around use, experience, and adoption. RESULTS:We retrieved 199 papers after an initial screening and removal of duplicate papers. Then we applied an inclusion and exclusion criteria, resulting in a final set of 17 papers that focused on 15 separate projects. The majority of papers described studies involving qualitative research, including interviews and focus groups. They looked at the experience and use of ePHRs and patient portals. Overall, we found 2 main barriers to use: (1) privacy and security and (2) access to and ability to use technology and the Internet. We found 2 facilitators: (1) technical assistance and (2) family and provider advice. We also reported on older adults' experience, including satisfaction with the system and improvement of the quality of their health care. Several studies captured features that older adults wanted from these systems such as further assistance managing health-related tasks and contextual health advice and tips. CONCLUSIONS:More research is needed to better understand the patient portal experience among older adults from initial use to adoption. There are also opportunities to explore the role of design in addressing barriers and supporting facilitators to patient portal and ePHR use. Finally, the future use of these systems by older adults should be anticipated and considered in the design process.

Project description:Patient experience plays an essential role in improving clinical effectiveness and patient safety. It's important to identify factors influencing patient experience and to improve quality of healthcare. To identify factors that influence patient experience in hospital wards. We conducted a systematic review including six databases; they were PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo, ProQuest, and Cochrane. Studies were included if they met the inclusion criteria. The JBI checklist was used to perform quality appraisal. We used 5 domains of the ecological model to organize and synthesize our findings to comprehensively understand the multi-level factors influencing the issue. A total of 138 studies were included, and 164 factors were identified. These factors were integrated into 6 domains. All domains but one (survey-related factors) could be mapped onto the attributes of the ecological framework: intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, community, and public policy level factors. All factors had mixed effect on patient experience. The intrapersonal level refers to individual characteristics of patients. The interpersonal level refers to interactions between patients and healthcare providers, such as the caring time spent by a nurse. The institutional level refers to organizational characteristics, rules and regulations for operations, such as hospital size and accreditation. The community level refers to relationships among organizations, institutions, and informational networks within defined boundaries, such as a hospital located in a larger population area. Public policy level refers to local, state, national, and global laws and policies, including health insurance policies. The sixth domain, survey-related factors, was added to the framework and included factors such as survey response rate and survey response time. The factors influencing patient experience are comprehensive, ranging from intrapersonal to public policy. Providers should adopt a holistic and integrated perspective to assess patient experience and develop context-specific interventions to improve the quality of care. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42023401066.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of dimensions evaluating patient experience in chronic illness.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A systematic review of dimensions evaluating patient experience in chronic illness.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets