Co-designing strategies to support patient partners during a scoping review and reflections on the process: a commentary.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Patient partners can be described as individuals who assume roles as active members on research teams, indicative of individuals with greater involvement, increased sharing of power, and increased responsibility than traditionally described by patient participants who are primarily studied. A gap still remains in the understanding of how to engage patients. The objective of this commentary is to describe the involvement of four patient partners who worked with researchers during a scoping review.Main body
We describe approaches to meaningfully engage patient partners in conducting a scoping review. Patient partners were recruited through existing patient networks. Capacity development in the form of the training was provided to these four patient partners. Engagement strategies were co-designed with them to address potential barriers of involvement and acquiring the necessary skills for the successful completion of this scoping review.Conclusion
Involving patients partners early in the project established the foundational relationship so patient partners could contribute to their fullest. We witnessed the success of working alongside patient partners as members of the research team with a clear and mutually agreed upon purpose of the engagement in health research activities and how this seemed to contribute to an effective and rewarding experience for both researcher and patient partner.
SUBMITTER: McCarron TL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8108017 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9258416 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Transformational research frameworks provide understanding and guidance for fostering change towards sustainability. They comprise stages of system understanding, visioning and co-designing intervention strategies to foster change. Guidance and empirical examples for how to facilitate the process of co-designing intervention strategies in real-world contexts remain scarce, especially with regard to integrating local initiatives. We suggest three principles to facilitate the process of co-designing intervention strategies that integrate local initiatives: (1) Explore existing and envisioned initiatives fostering change towards the desired future; (2) Frame the intervention strategy to bridge the gap between the present state and desired future state(s), building on, strengthening and complementing existing initiatives; (3) Identify drivers, barriers and potential leverage points for how to accelerate progress towards sustainability. We illustrate our approach via a case study on sustainable development in Southern Transylvania. We conclude that our principles were useful in the case study, especially with regards to integrating initiatives, and could also be applied in other real-world contexts.
| S-EPMC7320093 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The share of the population aged 65 years and over is increasing in every EU Member State, candidate country, and EFTA Member State. WHO/Europe has established a Subnetwork on Healthy Ageing within the European Healthy Cities Network and provides guidance to Member States in developing profiles of healthy ageing, since, given the increasing number of older adults, maintaining their health status is a crucial issue. This article, which is part of the Latvian national scientific program VPP INOSOCTEREHI, focuses on the issues related to the design, implementation, and assessment of user interfaces that can maximize usability in social telerehabilitation systems for older adult users. This is a very real challenge, since older adults don't form a homogeneous class. Investigating older adults' skills and their attitudes towards the perceived usefulness of computer applications could be helpful in identifying some sub-sets of older adult users and their typical behaviours.
| S-EPMC5536724 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundFor liver transplant candidates on the waiting list, deciding to accept a donor organ with known or potential risk factors can be stressful and can lead to declined offers. Current education for patients and family often takes place during transplant evaluations and can be overwhelming and result in low retention and poor understanding of donor quality.MethodsIn the first phase, we sought to understand provider experiences when counseling patients about donor risks and donor offers. We conducted interviews and focus groups with liver transplant providers at 1 local center and at a national clinician conference. Twenty providers participated: 15 hepatologists and 5 surgeons. The provider feedback was used to create an initial outline of content that is consistent with decision support frameworks. In a second phase, graphic design collaborators created mockups of a patient-friendly tool. We reviewed mockups with 4 transplant coordinators and 9 liver transplant candidates for feedback on clarity and utility to prepare for an organ offer. Patient responses allowed a comparison of perceived readiness to receive an offer call before and after viewing mockups.ResultsWe identified themes relating to the offer process, repetition and timing of education, and standardization and tailoring of content. The results indicated a gap in available education after the evaluation session, and information specific to offer decisions is needed. Patient feedback emphasized the need to review the offer process before a real offer.ConclusionsPatients and providers responded favorably to a patient tool addressing existing gaps in education while waiting for a donor offer. Additional patient, family, and provider feedback will guide the development of an interactive tool to prepare patients and families for an offer decision.
| S-EPMC8081471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough patient portals are widely used for health promotion, little is known about the use of palliative care and end-of-life (PCEOL) portal tools available for patients and caregivers.ObjectiveThis study aims to identify and assess the user perspectives of PCEOL portal tools available to patients and caregivers described and evaluated in the literature.MethodsWe performed a scoping review of the academic literature directed by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) extension for Scoping Review and searched three databases. Sources were included if they reported the development or testing of a feature, resource, tool, or intervention; focused on at least one PCEOL domain defined by the National Coalition for Hospice and Palliative Care; targeted adults with serious illness or caregivers; and were offered via a patient portal tethered to an electronic medical record. We independently screened the titles and abstracts (n=796) for eligibility. Full-text (84/796, 10.6%) sources were reviewed. We abstracted descriptions of the portal tool name, content, targeted population, and reported user acceptability for each tool from included sources (n=19).ResultsIn total, 19 articles describing 12 tools were included, addressing the following PCEOL domains: ethical or legal (n=5), physical (n=5), and psychological or psychiatric (n=2). No tools for bereavement or hospice care were identified. Studies have reported high acceptability of tools among users; however, few sources commented on usability among older adults.ConclusionsPCEOL patient portal tools are understudied. As medical care increasingly moves toward virtual platforms, future research should investigate the usability and acceptability of PCEOL patient portal resources and evaluate their impact on health outcomes.
| S-EPMC8485198 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Social support that includes promoting healthy behaviours throughout the oncology pathway, from diagnosis to treatment to survival, can leverage existing support networks and improve the health of patients and family members in supportive roles. This scoping review aimed to identify and summarise the impact of social support on the patient-informal caregiver relationship during cancer treatment. Inclusion criteria were related to a high focus on dyadic cancer patient-informal caregiver relationships, considering a population of adult cancer patients in active hospitalisation on an oncology ward, and published between 2012 and 2022 to get a portrait of the literature that might influence the current practice. A systematic search using the "Population, Concept, and Context" framework was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, EBSCO Medline, and CINAHL: 13 articles from the 16,425 pre-qualified articles published between 2012 and 2022. The narrative synthesis of the included studies highlighted that social support, encompassing its different forms within the context of dyads, is frequently associated with an enhanced quality of life, hope, and resilience of both patients and informal caregivers. However, it is important to recognize that the support interventions provided to patients, particularly caregivers, were frequently not thoroughly evaluated or explained, and the sample sizes of the included studies were often limited. Therefore, this review clarified the social and clinical potential of social support for the patient-informal caregiver relationship, paving the way for future robust studies that require to be powered and designed on specific outcomes to allow informing the practice on specific recommendations.
| S-EPMC10046409 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The unequal access, challenges and outcomes related to using technology have created the digital divide, which leads to health inequalities. The aim of this study was to apply the Ophelia (Optimizing Health Literacy and Access) process, a widely used systematic approach to whole of community co-design, to the digital context to generate solutions to improve health and equity outcomes. Methods: This was a mixed method study. A cross-sectional survey was undertaken at 3 health organizations in Victoria, Australia using the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ) as a needs assessment tool. Cluster analysis was conducted to identify subgroups with varying eHealth literacy needs. These data, combined with semi-structured interviews with clients, were used to generate vignettes representing different eHealth literacy profiles. The vignettes were presented at co-design workshops with clients and health professionals to generate solutions for digital health services improvement. Expert validation and proof-of-concept testing was explored through mapping the process against Ophelia guiding principles. Results: The cluster analyses identified 8 to 9 clusters with different profiles of eHealth literacy needs, with 4 to 6 vignettes developed to represent the eHealth literacy strengths and weaknesses of clients at each of the 3 sites. A total of 32, 43, and 32 solutions across 10 strategies were co-created based on ideas grounded in local expertise and experiences. Apart from digital solutions, non-digital solutions were frequently recommended as a strategy to address eHealth literacy needs. Expert validation identified at least half of the ideas were very important and feasible, while most of the guiding principles of the Ophelia process were successfully applied. Conclusion: By harnessing collective creativity through co-design, the Ophelia process has been shown to assist the development of solutions with the potential to improve health and equity outcomes in the digital context. Implementation of the solutions is needed to provide further evidence of the impact of the process. The suggested inclusion of non-digital solutions revealed through the co-design process reminds health organizations and policymakers that solutions should be flexible enough to suit individual needs. As such, taking a co-design approach to digital health initiatives will assist in preventing the widening of health inequalities.
| S-EPMC7718029 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDespite growing interest among patient and public partners to engage in writing lay summaries, evidence is scarce regarding the availability of resources to support them. This protocol describes the process of conducting a scoping review to: (1) summarise the source, criteria and characteristics, content, format, intended target audience, patient and public involvement in preparing guidance and development processes in the available guidance for writing lay summaries; (2) contextualise the available guidance to the needs/preferences of patient and public partners and (3) create a patient and public partner-informed output to support their engagement in writing lay summaries.Method and analysisA scoping review with an integrated knowledge translation approach will be used to ensure the collaboration between patient/public partners and researchers in all steps of the review. To meet objective 1, the English language evidence within a healthcare context that provides guidance for writing lay summaries will be searched in peer-reviewed publications and grey literature. All screening and extraction steps will be performed independently by two reviewers. Extracted data will be organised by adapting the European Union's principles for summaries of clinical trials for laypersons. For objectives 2 and 3, a consultation exercise will be held with patient and public partners to review and contextualise the findings from objective 1. A directed content analysis will be used to organise the data to the needs of the public audience. Output development will follow based on the results.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval will be obtained for the consultation exercise. Our target audience will be stakeholders who engage or are interested in writing lay summaries. Our dissemination products will include a manuscript, a lay summary and an output to support patient and public partners with writing lay summaries. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. OPEN SCIENCE FRAMEWORK REGISTRATION: osf.io/2dvfg.
| S-EPMC9756171 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of programTraditionally, peer review was a closed process conducted only by individuals working in the research field. To establish a more integrated and patient-centered approach, one of Canada's largest kidney research networks (Can-SOLVE CKD) has created a Research Operations Committee (ROC) that includes patients as key members. The ROC represents one way for achieving meaningful patient-oriented research (POR).Source of informationCan-SOLVE CKD, a network created as part of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR).MethodsThe ROC consists of patients, physicians, scientists, Indigenous partners, experts in research methodology, and a member of Can-SOLVE CKD's operational team. On an annual basis, Can-SOLVE CKD's research teams provide the ROC with a review package, which incorporates information from patient engagement check-in calls and surveys, the project's knowledge translation plan and products, and a progress report written by the project team. The ROC evaluates the review package and provides feedback and recommendations accordingly.Key findingsThe transparent nature of the process, regular feedback and review, along with an overt accountability and scoring system, has been embraced by both patients and researchers. As a result of the ROC process, the number of patient leads for each project has grown over a 3-year period and more researchers have received POR and cultural sensitivity training.LimitationsWhile anecdotal evidence suggests this approach is beneficial for achieving POR, formal mechanisms of evaluation are currently lacking.ImplicationsThis ROC framework ensures patients are active contributors throughout the research process and could be adopted by other organizations to achieve a more patient-centered approach to research.
| S-EPMC7705288 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Recruitment and retention of participants are both critical for the success of trials, yet both remain significant problems. The use of incentives to target participants and trial staff has been proposed as one solution. The effects of incentives are complex and depend upon how they are designed, but these complexities are often overlooked. In this paper, we used a scoping review to 'map' the literature, with two aims: to develop a checklist on the design and use of incentives to support recruitment and retention in trials; and to identify key research topics for the future. METHODS:The scoping review drew on the existing economic theory of incentives and a structured review of the literature on the use of incentives in three healthcare settings: trials, pay for performance, and health behaviour change. We identified the design issues that need to be considered when introducing an incentive scheme to improve recruitment and retention in trials. We then reviewed both the theoretical and empirical evidence relating to each of these design issues. We synthesised the findings into a checklist to guide the design of interventions using incentives. RESULTS:The issues to consider when designing an incentive system were summarised into an eight-question checklist. The checklist covers: the current incentives and barriers operating in the system; who the incentive should be directed towards; what the incentive should be linked to; the form of incentive; the incentive size; the structure of the incentive system; the timing and frequency of incentive payouts; and the potential unintended consequences. We concluded the section on each design aspect by highlighting the gaps in the current evidence base. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings highlight how complex the design of incentive systems can be, and how crucial each design choice is to overall effectiveness. The most appropriate design choice will differ according to context, and we have aimed to provide context-specific advice. Whilst all design issues warrant further research, evidence is most needed on incentives directed at recruiters, optimal incentive size, and testing of different incentive structures, particularly exploring repeat arrangements with recruiters.
| S-EPMC6842495 | biostudies-literature