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:INTRODUCTION:Substance 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 ANALYSIS:This 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 DISSEMINATION:This 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: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: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
Project description:IntroductionUsing digital health in primary health care (PHC) contributes to reducing costs and travel time, achieving global development goals, improving access, quality and longitudinality of care, and managing health crises. Its evaluation must go beyond the technical-operational aspects to include patient satisfaction, a key element in assessing the quality of care.ObjectiveTo identify and map patient satisfaction (expectations, desires, cultural values) about the adoption of digital health strategies and assess their impact on the quality of care in PHC.MethodsThe review will follow the recommendations proposed by the Joanna's Briggs Institute (JBI) manual, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and the methodology proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al. and will be conducted in nine stages. The search will be conducted in health studies databases (MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and BVS), gray literature, and preprint repositories (Google Scholar and MedRxiv). Two reviewers will select the studies, and the third will analyze possible conflicts. The inclusion criteria comprise studies that have been made available in their entirety, whether they are primary studies or short communications, as well as the following materials extracted from the gray literature: preprints, manuals, government documents, books, guidelines, theses and dissertations. Exclusion criteria include literature reviews, abstracts, books, conference archives, letters to the editor, duplicates and opinion articles. Data will be analyzed by content analysis and inferential statistics. This protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) under DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/PUJDB.ResultsThe study aims to understand aspects related to the expectations, desires, and cultural values of patients from different countries, as well as the strengths and critical nodes of the use of digital health on the quality of care in PHC.
| S-EPMC11322341 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveIdentify, map, and synthesize existing reviews, to extract and analyse the most prominent barriers and facilitators to applying patient-centred goal-setting practice in rehabilitation using the Capability, Opportunity Motivation Behaviour (COM-B) model.DesignScoping review.Data sourceA primary search was conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychInfo, and Cochrane. Citation chaining was employed.Review methodsAll types of review (systematic, scoping, and narrative) studies published up to June 14, 2022 that included physical and neurological rehabilitation, patient-centeredness, and goal-setting were reviewed. Studies were scrutinized for relevance, quality was not assessed. The most prominent barriers and facilitators were synthesized using thematic content analysis and mapped onto the COM-B model.ResultsTwenty-six review studies covering a range of conditions and settings, acute to community were included. Barrier and facilitators were identified at patient, provider, and organizational level. Barrier themes include provider's existing beliefs about goal-setting, lack of skills, and integration into clinical routines. Patient barriers related to capacity and opportunity to participate. Organizational barriers include lack of clinical guidelines, patient preparation, insufficient provider time, and high productivity expectations. Facilitators included goal-setting guidelines, training and education of providers and patients, revised clinical routines, performance monitoring, adequate time, and resources.ConclusionHealthcare providers should be the primary target of intervention. A provider's motivation to change current practice is the most prominent barrier, followed closely by capacity and opportunity. Patients require information, training, and structured engagement opportunities. Organizations play a key role in creating the optimal environmental conditions to enable patient-centred goal-setting.
| S-EPMC9574028 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionInfertility is a widespread social phenomenon. For both women and men, there are several psychosocial issues associated with infertility. Numerous systematic reviews have focused on individuals' psychosocial issues pertaining to infertility, however, these have been conducted in developed countries. Thus, there is a gap in the current literature to analyse individuals' psychosocial issues associated with infertility in developing countries. Given that there are various contextual factors to consider for appropriate interventions to be implemented, it is vital to explore this topic in a developing context.Methods and analysisA scoping review will be conducted. A total of 12 databases were identified and a search string including terms related to infertility, psychosocial aspects and developing countries was developed. The inclusion and exclusion of each article will be determined through the guidelines provided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow chart. Quantitative and qualitative data will be collated. The findings will summarise existing research on psychosocial aspects of infertility in developing countries and identify gaps in the research corpus.Ethics and disseminationData will not be collected from participants. Instead, data will be extracted from published studies and therefore no ethical approval is required. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
| S-EPMC8166616 | biostudies-literature