Dataset Information

Towards a multilevel governance framework on the implementation of patient rights in health facilities: a protocol for a systematic scoping review.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Patient rights are "those rights that are attributed to a person seeking healthcare". Patient rights have implications for quality of healthcare and acts as a key accountability tool. It can galvanise structural improvements in the health system and reinforces ethical healthcare. States are duty bound to respect, protect and promote patient rights. The rhetoric on patient rights is burgeoning across the globe. With changing modes of governance arrangements, a number of state and non-state actors and institutions at various levels play a role in the design and implementation of (patient rights) policies. However, there is limited understanding on the multilevel institutional mechanisms for patient rights implementation in health facilities. We attempt to fill this gap by analysing the available scholarship on patient rights through a critical interpretive synthesis approach in a systematic scoping review. METHODS:The review question is 'how do the multilevel actors, institutional structures, processes interact and influence the patient rights implementation in healthcare facilities? How do they work at what level and in which contexts?" Three databases PubMed, LexisNexis and Web of Science will be systematically searched until 30th April 2020, for empirical and non-empirical literature in English from both lower middle-income countries and high-income countries. Targeted search will be performed in grey literature and through citation and reference tracking of key records. Using the critical interpretive synthesis approach, a multilevel governance framework on the implementation of patient rights in health facilities which is grounded in the data will be developed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The review uses published literature hence ethics approval is not required. The findings of the review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. REGISTRATION NUMBER:PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020176939.

SUBMITTER: Putturaj M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7566736 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Towards a multilevel governance framework on the implementation of patient rights in health facilities: a protocol for a systematic scoping review.

Putturaj Meena M Van Belle Sara S Criel Bart B Engel Nora N Krumeich Anja A B Nagendrappa Prakash P Prashanth N S NS

BMJ open 20201015 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>Patient rights are "those rights that are attributed to a person seeking healthcare". Patient rights have implications for quality of healthcare and acts as a key accountability tool. It can galvanise structural improvements in the health system and reinforces ethical healthcare. States are duty bound to respect, protect and promote patient rights. The rhetoric on patient rights is burgeoning across the globe. With changing modes of governance arrangements, a number of state ...[more]

PMID: 33060087

Similar Datasets

Project description:The notion of patient rights encompasses the obligations of the state and healthcare providers to respect the dignity, autonomy and equality of care-seeking individuals in healthcare processes. Functional patient grievance redressal systems are key to ensuring that the rights of individuals seeking healthcare are protected. We critically examined the published literature from high-income and upper-middle-income countries to establish an analytical framework on grievance redressal for patient rights violations in health facilities. We then used lawsuits on patient rights violations from the Supreme Court of India to analyse the relevance of the developed framework to the Indian context. With market perspectives pervading the health sector, there is an increasing trend of adopting a consumerist approach to protecting patient rights. In this line, avenues for grievance redressal for patient rights violations are gaining traction. Some of the methods and instruments for patient rights implementation include charters, ombudsmen, tribunals, health professional councils, separating rules for redressal and professional liability in patient rights violations, blame-free reporting systems, direct community monitoring and the court system. The grievance redressal mechanisms for patient rights violations in health facilities showcase multilevel governance arrangements with overlapping decision-making units at the national and subnational levels. The privileged position of medical professionals in multilevel governance arrangements for grievance redressal puts care-seeking individuals at a disadvantaged position during dispute resolution processes. Inclusion of external structures in health services and the healthcare profession and laypersons in the grievance redressal processes is heavily contested. Normatively speaking, a patient grievance redressal system should be accessible, impartial and independent in its function, possess the required competence, have adequate authority, seek continuous quality improvement, offer feedback to the health system and be comprehensive and integrated within the larger healthcare regulatory architecture.

Project description:IntroductionThere is a growing demand for long-term care services for older adults that embrace a model of care centred on individual recipients of care. In long-term care, models of person, resident and relationship-centred care have been developed and implemented to promote independence, decision making and choices of residents. Although the concepts of centredness have been readily adopted in these environments, what constitutes centredness is often vague and lacks conceptual clarity and definition. The research questions guiding this scoping review are: (1) What are the defining attributes, conceptual boundaries and theoretical underpinnings of each centredness term in long-term care? (2) For what purposes have centredness directed models of care been used in this context? (3) What types of study designs have been used to examine centredness in this context? (4) What outcomes related to centredness have been reported or evaluated and how were they measured in long-term care?Methods and analysisThis review uses the methodological framework for conducting a scoping review by Arksey and O'Malley. The search strategy will be applied to nine bibliographic and citation databases, Google Scholar and the grey literature. Study selection will occur in a two-step process. First, the titles and abstracts of all search results will be screened by individual reviewers. Second, a full-text review will be conducted by a pair of reviewers. To be included articles must (1) define centredness in the context of long-term care; (2) describe the defining features of centredness; (3) explore the theoretical underpinnings of centredness; (4) outline outcomes of centredness or (5) use outcome measures related to centredness. Data will be extracted from included studies and analysed using thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clark.Ethics and disseminationResearch ethics approval is not required for this scoping review. Dissemination strategies will follow a targeted and tailored approach based on study findings.

Project description:BackgroundDigital technology is a means to uphold or violate human rights in various domains, including business, military, and health. Given the pervasiveness of mobile technology in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), mobile health (mHealth) interventions present an opportunity to reach remote populations and enable them to exercise civil and political rights and economic, social, and cultural rights, such as the right to health and education. Simultaneously, the ubiquity of mobile phones involves processing sensitive data which can threaten rights, including the right to privacy and nondiscrimination. Digital health is often promoted as advancing human rights and health equity; however, digital rights are underexplored in the literature on mHealth in LMICs. As such, creating an understanding of the digital rights topics covered in the 2022 literature is important to avoid exacerbating existing inequities relating to digital health design, use, implementation, and access.ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to identify digital rights topics in the 2022 peer-reviewed literature on mHealth in LMICs.MethodsThe Arksey and O'Malley framework for scoping reviews guides this review. Searches were performed across 7 electronic databases (Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, ProQuest, and PubMed). The screening processes were guided by the research question "What digital rights topics have been explored in the 2022 literature on mHealth in LMICs?" Only papers addressing mHealth in LMICs and digital rights topics were included. Data extraction will include publication title, year, and type; first author's affiliation country; LMICs implicated; infrastructure challenges; study aims, design, limitations, and future work; health area; mHealth technology, functions, purpose or application, and target end users; human or digital right terms used; explicit rights topics cited; and implied rights topics. The results will be reported using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist.ResultsThis scoping review was registered in Open Science Framework (December 22, 2022). Title and abstract screening and full-text paper screening were completed in 2023. This resulted in 56 papers being included in the study. The target date for completing data extraction and publishing a case study of the initial findings is the end of 2023. The full scoping review findings are expected to be disseminated through various pathways benefiting academia, practice, and policy making by the end of 2024. These include journal papers, conference presentations, publicly available toolkits for research and practice, public webinars, and policy briefs with evidence-based policy recommendations emerging from this review.ConclusionsThe planned scoping review will identify digital rights topics in the 2022 literature at the intersection of mHealth and LMICs. Furthermore, it will highlight the importance of patient empowerment, data protection, and inclusion in mHealth research and related policies in LMICs.Trial registrationOpen Science Framework osf.io/7mz24; https://osf.io/7mz24.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/49150.

Project description:BackgroundAccurate and feasible assessment of dietary intake remains challenging for research and healthcare. Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM) is a real-time real-life data capturing method with low burden and good feasibility not yet fully explored as alternative dietary assessment method.MethodsThis scoping review is the first to explore the implementation of ESM as an alternative to traditional dietary assessment methods by mapping the methodological considerations to apply ESM and formulating recommendations to develop an Experience Sampling-based Dietary Assessment Method (ESDAM). The scoping review methodology framework was followed by searching PubMed (including OVID) and Web of Science from 2012 until 2024.ResultsScreening of 646 articles resulted in 39 included articles describing 24 studies. ESM was mostly applied for qualitative dietary assessment (i.e. type of consumed foods) (n = 12), next to semi-quantitative dietary assessment (i.e. frequency of consumption, no portion size) (n = 7), and quantitative dietary assessment (i.e. type and portion size of consumed foods) (n = 5). Most studies used ESM to assess the intake of selected foods. Two studies applied ESM as an alternative to traditional dietary assessment methods assessing total dietary intake quantitatively (i.e. all food groups). ESM duration ranged from 4 to 30 days and most studies applied ESM for 7 days (n = 15). Sampling schedules were mostly semi-random (n = 12) or fixed (n = 9) with prompts starting at 8-10 AM and ending at 8-12 PM. ESM questionnaires were adapted from existing questionnaires, based on food consumption data or focus group discussions, and respond options were mostly presented as multiple-choice. Recall period to report dietary intake in ESM prompts varied from 15 min to 3.5 h.ConclusionsMost studies used ESM for 7 days with fixed or semi-random sampling during waking hours and 2-h recall periods. An ESDAM can be developed starting from a food record approach (actual intake) or a validated food frequency questionnaire (long-term or habitual intake). Actual dietary intake can be measured by ESM through short intensive fixed sampling schedules while habitual dietary intake measurement by ESM allows for longer less frequent semi-random sampling schedules. ESM sampling protocols should be developed carefully to optimize feasibility and accuracy of dietary data.

Project description:IntroductionA 2011 paper proposed a working taxonomy of implementation outcomes, their conceptual distinctions and a two-pronged research agenda on their role in implementation success. Since then, over 1100 papers citing the manuscript have been published. Our goal is to compare the field's progress to the originally proposed research agenda, and outline recommendations for the next 10 years. To accomplish this, we are conducting the proposed scoping review.Methods and analysisOur approach is informed by Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews. We will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. We first aim to assess the degree to which each implementation outcome has been investigated in the literature, including healthcare settings, clinical populations and innovations represented. We next aim to describe the relationship between implementation strategies and outcomes. Our last aim is to identify studies that empirically assess relationships among implementation and/or service and client outcomes. We will use a forward citation tracing approach to identify all literature that cited the 2011 paper in the Web of Science (WOS) and will supplement this with citation alerts sent to the second author for a 6-month period coinciding with the WOS citation search. Our review will focus on empirical studies that are designed to assess at least one of the identified implementation outcomes in the 2011 taxonomy and are published in peer-reviewed journals. We will generate descriptive statistics from extracted data and organise results by these research aims.Ethics and disseminationNo human research participants will be involved in this review. We plan to share findings through a variety of means including peer-reviewed journal publications, national conference presentations, invited workshops and webinars, email listservs affiliated with our institutions and professional associations, and academic social media.

Dataset Information

Towards a multilevel governance framework on the implementation of patient rights in health facilities: a protocol for a systematic scoping review.

Publications

Towards a multilevel governance framework on the implementation of patient rights in health facilities: a protocol for a systematic scoping review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets