Patient-centred infertility care: a scoping review protocol.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Webair HH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6886940 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionSubstance use disorders are chronic conditions that require a multidimensional treatment approach. Despite ongoing efforts to diversify such treatments, evidence continues to illuminate modest rates of treatment engagement and perceived barriers to treatment. Patient-centred care (PCC) is one approach that may strengthen the responsiveness of treatments for people with problematic substance use. The aim of this scoping review is to explore how the principles of PCC have been implemented and operationalised in healthcare settings for people with problematic substance use.Methods and analysisThis scoping review follows the iterative stages of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Both empirical (from Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and ISI Web of Science) and grey literature references will be considered if they focused on populations with problematic substance use and described or measured PCC or one of its principles in a health-oriented context. Two reviewers will independently screen references in two successive stages of title/abstract screening and then full-text screening for references meeting title/abstract criteria. A descriptive overview, tabular and/or graphical summaries, and a directed content analysis will be carried out on extracted data. This scoping review has been registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/5swvd/).Ethics and disseminationThis review will systematically examine the extent and nature of existing evidence of PCC in addiction research and clinical practice. Such evidence will contribute to the operationalisation of PCC for people with problematic substance use. A multidisciplinary team has been gathered to represent the needs of people with problematic substance use, healthcare providers and decision-makers. The team's knowledge users will be engaged throughout this review and will participate in dissemination activities (eg, workshops, presentations, publications, reports).
| S-EPMC6318507 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe shift to the patient-centred care (PCC) model as a healthcare delivery paradigm calls for systematic measurement and evaluation. In an attempt to develop patient-centred quality indicators (PC-QIs), this study aimed to identify quality indicators that can be used to measure PCC.MethodsDesign: scoping review.Data sourcesstudies were identified through searching seven electronic databases and the grey literature. Search terms included quality improvement, quality indicators, healthcare quality and PCC. Eligibility Criteria: articles were included if they mentioned development and/or implementation of PC-QIs.Data extraction and synthesisextracted data included study characteristics (country, year of publication and type of study/article), patients' inclusion in the development of indicators and type of patient populations and point of care if applicable (eg, in-patient, out-patient and primary care).ResultsA total 184 full-text peer-reviewed articles were assessed for eligibility for inclusion; of these, 9 articles were included in this review. From the non-peer-reviewed literature, eight documents met the criteria for inclusion in this study. This review revealed the heterogeneity describing and defining the nature of PC-QIs. Most PC-QIs were presented as PCC measures and identified as guidelines, surveys or recommendations, and therefore cannot be classified as actual PC-QIs. Out of 502 ways to measure PCC, only 25 were considered to be actual PC-QIs. None of the identified articles implemented the quality indicators in care settings.ConclusionThe identification of PC-QIs is a key first step in laying the groundwork to develop evidence-based PC-QIs. Research is needed to continue the development and implementation of PC-QIs for healthcare quality improvement.
| S-EPMC6326310 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPatient-centred care is valued by patients and providers. As management of cancer becomes increasingly complex, the value of providing care that incorporates an individual's values and preferences along with demographic and tumour factors is increasingly important. To improve care, patients with cancer need easily accessible information on the outcomes important to them. The patient-centred outcome, days at home (DAH), is based on a construct that measures the time a patient spends alive and out of hospitals and healthcare institutions. DAH is accurately measured from various data sources and has shown construct validity with many patient-centred outcomes. There is significant heterogeneity in terms used and definitions for DAH in cancer care. This scoping review aims to consolidate information on the outcome DAH in cancer care and to review definitions and terms used to date to guide future use of DAH as a patient-centred care, research and policy tool.Methods and analysisThis scoping review protocol has been designed with joint guidance from the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the expanded framework from Arksey and O'Malley. We will systematically search MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus for studies measuring DAH, or equivalent, in the context of active adult cancer care. Broad inclusion criteria have been developed, given the recent introduction of DAH into cancer literature. Editorials, opinion pieces, case reports, abstracts, dissertations, protocols, reviews, narrative studies and grey literature will be excluded. Two authors will independently perform full-text selection. Data will be extracted, charted and summarised both qualitatively and quantitively.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is required for this scoping review. Results will be disseminated through scientific publication and presentation at relevant conferences.
| S-EPMC10030791 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe current study aims to define patient-centred infertility care (PCIC) from the perspective of Arab women with infertility.DesignSemistructured in-depth telephone interviews.SettingHospitals providing infertility care, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.ParticipantsArab women who received infertility treatment during the 6 months preceding the interview at any hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Interviews were conducted with Arab women experiencing infertility from January 2017 to December 2018. A purposive sample of 14 women were included in the final analysis with maximum variation.ResultsParticipants highlighted nine important PCIC dimensions. Of these, four were agreed on by all participants: accessibility, minimising cost, information and education, and staff attitudes and communication. The remaining five dimensions were staff competence, physical comfort, privacy, psychological and emotional support, and continuity and coordination of care. The concept of PCIC was related to three major contributors: participants' demographics, patient experience with infertility care and health-seeking behaviour.ConclusionsThe current study provided nine PCIC dimensions and items, which can guide efforts to improve the quality of infertility care in Arab countries in two ways: first, by raising infertility care providers' awareness of their patients' needs, and second, by developing a validated tool based on the dimensions for measuring PCIC from Arab patients' perspective. Clear differences between the Arab and the European PCIC model were found. Our findings concluded that women continued to exhibit basic unmet needs.
| S-EPMC8215246 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Gendered disparities in health care delivery and outcomes are an international problem. Patient-centred care (PCC) improves patient and health system outcomes, and is widely advocated to reduce inequities. The purpose of this study was to review published research for frameworks of patient-centred care for women (PCCW) that could serve as the basis for quality improvement. METHODS:A scoping review was conducted by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and Joanna Briggs index for English-language quantitative or qualitative studies published from 2008 to 2018 that included at least 50% women aged 18?years or greater and employed or generated a PCCW framework. Findings were analyzed using a 6-domain PCC framework, and reported using summary statistics and narrative descriptions. RESULTS:A total of 9267 studies were identified, 6670 were unique, 6610 titles were excluded upon title/abstract screening, and 11 were deemed eligible from among 60 full-text articles reviewed. None were based on or generated a PCCW framework, included solely women, or analyzed or reported findings by gender. All studies explored or described PCC components through qualitative research or surveys. None of the studies addressed all 6 domains of an established PCC framework; however, additional PCC elements emerged in 9 of 11 studies including timely responses, flexible scheduling, and humanized management, meaning tailoring communication and treatment to individual needs and preferences. There were no differences in PCC domains between studies comprised primarily of women and other studies. CONCLUSIONS:Given the paucity of research on PCCW, primary research is needed to generate knowledge about PCCW processes, facilitators, challenges, interventions and impacts, which may give rise to a PCCW framework that could be used to plan, deliver, evaluate and improve PCCW.
| S-EPMC6902460 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to identify patient-centred quality indicators (PC-QI) and measures for measuring cultural competence in healthcare.DesignScoping review.SettingAll care settings.Search strategyA search of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Social Work Abstracts and SocINDEX, and the grey literature was conducted to identify relevant studies. Studies were included if they reported indicators or measures for cultural competence. We differentiated PC-QIs from measures: PC-QIs were identified as a unit of measurement of the performance of the healthcare system, which reflects what matters to patients and families, and to any individual that is in contact with healthcare services. In contrast, measures evaluate delivery of patient-centred care, in the form of a survey and/or checklist. Data collected included publication year and type, country, ethnocultural groups and mention of quality indicator and/or measures for cultural competence.ResultsThe search yielded a total of 786 abstracts and sources, of which 16 were included in the review. Twelve out of 16 sources reported measures for cultural competence, for a total of 10 measures. Identified domains from the measures included: physical environment, staff awareness of attitudes and values, diversity training and communication. Two out of 16 sources reported PC-QIs for cultural competence (92 structure and process indicators, and 48 outcome indicators). There was greater representation of structure and process indicators and measures for cultural competence, compared with outcome indicators.ConclusionMonitoring and evaluating patient-centred care for ethnocultural communities allows for improvements to be made in the delivery of culturally competent healthcare. Future research should include development of PC-QIs for measuring cultural competence that also reflect cultural humility, and the involvement of ethnocultural communities in the development and implementation of these indicators.
| S-EPMC6059336 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionFor close to a century opioid administration has been a standard of care to complement anaesthesia during surgery. Considering the worldwide opioid epidemic, this practice is now being challenged and there is a growing use of systemic pharmacological opioid minimising strategies. Our aim is to conduct a scoping review that will examine clinical trials that have evaluated the impact of intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies on patient-centred outcomes and identify promising strategies.Methods and analysisOur scoping review will follow the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science and CINAHL from their inception approximately in March 2023. We will include randomised controlled trials, assessing the impact of systemic intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies on patient-centred outcomes. We define an opioid minimisation strategy as any non-opioid drug with antinociceptive properties administered during the intraoperative period. Patient-centred outcomes will be defined and classified based on the consensus definitions established by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative (StEP-COMPAC group) and informed by knowledge users and patient partners. We will use a coproduction approach involving interested parties. Our multidisciplinary team includes knowledge users, patient partners, methodologists and knowledge user organisations. Knowledge users will provide input on methods, outcomes, clinical significance of findings, implementation and feasibility. Patient partners will participate in assessing the relevance of our design, methods and outcomes and help to facilitate evidence translation. We will provide a thorough description of available clinical trials, compare their reported patient-centred outcome measures with established recommendations and identify promising strategies.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for the review. Our scoping review will inform future research including clinical trials and systematic reviews through identification of important intraoperative interventions. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, presentation at conferences and through our network of knowledge user collaborators.RegistrationOpen Science Foundation (currently embargoed).
| S-EPMC9980324 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe focus of family planning counselling is gradually shifting from the tiered-effectiveness model to patient-centred counselling. Although tools exist that aim to make family planning counselling more patient-oriented without increasing the provider's workload, they are not widely used. This scoping review aims to address this by identifying key tools to make family planning care more patient-centred, reviewing the domains of patient-centred care they address, and identifying gaps in the evidence base.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed and SCOPUS for documents on 'patient-centred family planning counselling or support' published between 2013 and 2022. Eligibility criteria included discussion of: 1) strategies for providing patient-centred care; 2) interventions using a patient-centred approach; or 3) the impact of patient-centred approaches. We identified tools for patient-centred care, and mapped them against an existing framework of the main domains of patient-centred care. We reported the available evidence of the impact on those tools.ResultsOur scoping review is based on 33 documents. We identified six tools for increasing the patient-centeredness of family planning counselling. None of the tools addressed all domains of patient-centred care. Evidence about the impact of these tools remains scarce. Although there is some evidence about the acceptability of the tools, key evidence gaps include the effect of the tools on quality of care and family planning outcomes.ConclusionsFamily planning implementers should be aware that existing tools differ in the extent to which they address key domains of patient-centred family planning counselling. There is a need for further research on factors that may deter providers from adopting these tools. A larger evidence base is needed to permit a future systematic review to determine the effect of these tools on family planning outcomes, such as method adoption and continuation.
| S-EPMC10846870 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionFollowing a cancer diagnosis, patients and their caregivers face crucial decisions regarding goals of care and treatment, which have consequences that can persist throughout their cancer journey. To foster informed and value-driven treatment choices, evidence-based information on outcomes relevant to patients is needed. Traditionally, clinical studies have largely focused on a few concrete and easily measurable outcomes such as survival, disease progression and immediate treatment toxicities. These outcomes do not capture other important factors that patients consider when making treatment decisions. Patient-centred outcomes (PCOs) reflect the patients' individual values, preferences, needs and circumstances that are essential to directing meaningful and informed healthcare discussions. Often, however, these outcomes are not included in research protocols in a standardised and practical fashion. This scoping review will summarise the existing literature on PCOs in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer care as well as the tools used to assess these outcomes. A comprehensive list of these PCOs will be generated for future efforts to develop a core outcome set.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will follow Arksey and O'Malley's expanded framework for scoping reviews. We will systematically search Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and APA PsycINFO databases for studies examining PCOs in the context of GI cancer. We will include studies published in or after the year 2000 up to the date of the final searches, with no language restrictions. Studies involving adult patients with GI cancers and discussion of any PCOs will be included. Opinion pieces, protocols, case reports and abstracts will be excluded. Two authors will independently perform two rounds of screening to select studies for inclusion. The data from full texts will be extracted, charted and summarised both quantitatively and qualitatively.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is required for this scoping review. Results will be disseminated through scientific publication and presentation at relevant conferences.
| S-EPMC9198790 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study questionWhat is the scope of literature regarding infertility and fertility care indicators in terms of types and dimensions of these indicators?Summary answerMost available infertility and fertility care indicators are outcomes indicators of effectiveness and efficiency dimensions.What is known alreadyThe use of appropriate, relevant and valid indicators of infertility and fertility care is critical for monitoring access, equity and utilization.Study design size durationA systematic scoping review was conducted. We searched MEDLINE, Pubmed, JSTOR, CINAHL, Web of Science and Scopus electronic databases from inception to May 2022 without imposing language or date restrictions. We searched gray literature and online libraries of relevant organizations. We hand-searched the list of relevant references.Participants/materials setting methodsThis scoping systematic review followed the framework of Arksey and O'Malley and the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Records identified by the search were independently screened and data were extracted. We performed conceptual synthesis by grouping the reported indicators by typology and dimensions. Structured tabulation and graphical synthesis were used along with narrative commentary.Main results and the role of chanceWe included 46 reports from 88 countries. The reporting of infertility and fertility care indicators was voluntary in 63 countries (72%) and compulsory in 25 countries (28%). Reporting for cycles or deliveries was based on individual cycles in 56 countries (64%) and on cumulative cycles in 32 countries (36%). Most indicators were utilized as outcome indicators with fewer being process indicators or structural indicators. For the dimension of indicators, most indicators were utilized as effectiveness and efficiency indicators with fewer utilized as indicators of safety, patient-centeredness, equity and timeliness.Limitations reasons for cautionMost indicators fall into the domain of assisted reproductive technology and are reported by fertility clinics. Indicators of safety, patient-centeredness, equity and timeliness as well as non-clinical indicators are almost invisible.Wider implications of the findingsA wide range of indicators of infertility and fertility care exist in literature. Most indicators were effectiveness and efficiency indicators, while indicators of safety, patient-centeredness, equity and timeliness remain almost invisible. The scope of the current indicators indicates a predominant focus on clinical metrics, with substantial invisibility of non-clinical indicators and indicators outside the ART domain. These gaps need to be considered in further work of identifying a core set of indicators.Study funding/competing interestsThis work received funding from the UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored program executed by the World Health Organization (WHO). The authors had no competing interests.Trial registration numberOpen Science Framework vsu42.
| S-EPMC9632452 | biostudies-literature