Dataset Information

Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature.

ABSTRACT: Current research suggests that while patients are becoming more engaged across the health delivery spectrum, this involvement occurs most often at the pre-preparation stage to identify 'high-level' priorities in health ecosystem priority setting, and at the preparation phase for health research.The purpose of this systematic rapid review of the literature is to describe the evidence that does exist in relation to patient and public engagement priority setting in both health ecosystem and health research.HealthStar (via OVID); CINAHL; Proquest Databases; and Scholar's Portal.i) published in English; ii) published within the timeframe of 2007-Current (10 years) unless the report/article was formative in synthesizing key considerations of patient engagement in health ecosystem and health research priority setting; iii) conducted in Canada, the US, Europe, UK, Australia/New Zealand, or Scandinavian countries.i) Is the research valid, sound, and applicable?; ii) what outcomes can we potentially expect if we implement the findings from this research?; iii) will the target population (i.e., health researchers and practitioners) be able to use this research?. A summary of findings from each of the respective processes was synthesized to highlight key information that would support decision-making for researchers when determining the best priority setting process to apply for their specific patient-oriented research.Seventy articles from the UK, US, Canada, Netherlands and Australia were selected for review. Results were organized into two tiers of public and patient engagement in prioritization: Tier 1-Deliberative and Tier 2-Consultative. Highly structured patient and public engagement planning activities include the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships (UK), Dialogue Method (Netherlands), Global Evidence Mapping (Australia), and the Deep Inclusion Method/CHoosing All Together (US).The critical study limitations include challenges in comprehensively identifying the patient engagement literature for review, bias in article selection due to the identified scope, missed information due to a more limited use of exhaustive search strategies (e.g., in-depth hand searching), and the heterogeneity of reported study findings.The four public and patient engagement priority setting processes identified were successful in setting priorities that are inclusive and objectively based, specific to the priorities of stakeholders engaged in the process. The processes were robust, strategic and aimed to promote equity in patient voices. Key limitations identified a lack of evaluation data on the success and extent in which patients were engaged. Issues pertaining to feasibility of stakeholder engagement, coordination, communication and limited resources were also considered.

SUBMITTER: Manafo E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5834195 | biostudies-other | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature.

Manafò Elizabeth E Petermann Lisa L Vandall-Walker Virginia V Mason-Lai Ping P

PloS one 20180302 3

<h4>Background</h4>Current research suggests that while patients are becoming more engaged across the health delivery spectrum, this involvement occurs most often at the pre-preparation stage to identify 'high-level' priorities in health ecosystem priority setting, and at the preparation phase for health research.<h4>Objective</h4>The purpose of this systematic rapid review of the literature is to describe the evidence that does exist in relation to patient and public engagement priority setting ...[more]

PMID: 29499043

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is an unmet need for review methods to support priority-setting, policy-making and strategic planning when a wide variety of interventions from differing disciplines may have the potential to impact a health outcome of interest. This article describes a Modular Literature Review, a novel systematic search and review method that employs systematic search strategies together with a hierarchy-based appraisal and synthesis of the resulting evidence.MethodsWe designed the Modular Review to examine the effects of 43 interventions on a health problem of global significance. Using the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study design) framework, we developed a single four-module search template in which population, comparison and outcome modules were the same for each search and the intervention module was different for each of the 43 interventions. A series of literature searches were performed in five databases, followed by screening, extraction and analysis of data. "ES documents", source documents for effect size (ES) estimates, were systematically identified based on a hierarchy of evidence. The evidence was categorised according to the likely effect on the outcome and presented in a standardised format with quantitative effect estimates, meta-analyses and narrative reporting. We compared the Modular Review to other review methods in health research for its strengths and limitations.ResultsThe Modular Review method was used to review the impact of 46 antenatal interventions on four specified birth outcomes within 12 months. A total of 61,279 records were found; 35,244 were screened by title-abstract. Six thousand two hundred seventy-two full articles were reviewed against the inclusion criteria resulting in 365 eligible articles.ConclusionsThe Modular Review preserves principles that have traditionally been important to systematic reviews but can address multiple research questions simultaneously. The result is an accessible, reliable answer to the question of "what works?". Thus, it is a well-suited literature review method to support prioritisation, decisions and planning to implement an agenda for health improvement.

Project description:BackgroundRecent studies mention a need to investigate partnership roles and dynamics within patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health research, and how impact and outcomes are achieved. Many labels exist to describe involvement processes, but it is unknown whether the label has implications on partnerships and outcomes. This rapid review investigates how roles between patients, relatives and researchers in a broad variety of PPIE activities in health research are described in peer reviewed papers and explores what enables these partnerships.MethodsRapid review of articles published between 2012 and February 2022 describing, evaluating, or reflecting on experiences of PPIE in health research. All research disciplines and research areas were eligible. Four databases (Medline, Embase, PsychInfo and CINAHL) were searched between November 2021 and February 2022. We followed PRISMA guidelines and extracted descriptive factors: year, origin, research area and discipline, study focus, framework used and co-authorship. On a selection of articles, we performed a narrative analysis of partnership roles using Smits et al.'s. Involvement Matrix. Lastly, we performed a meta synthesis of reported enablers and outcomes of the partnerships. Patients and Relatives (PRs) have been involved in the whole rapid review process and are co-authors of this article.ResultsSeventy articles from various research disciplines and areas were included. Forty articles were selected for a narrative analysis of the role description of PRs and researchers, and a meta synthesis of enablers and outcomes. Most articles described researchers as decision-makers throughout the research cycle. PRs most often were partners when they were included as co-authors; they were mostly partners in the design, analysis, write-up, and dissemination stages. Enablers of partnerships included: PR training, personality of PRs and communication skills, trust, remuneration and time.ConclusionsResearchers' decision-making roles gives them control of where and when to include PRs in their projects. Co-authorship is a way of acknowledging patients' contributions which may lead to legitimation of their knowledge and the partnership. Authors describe common enablers, which can help future partnership formation.

Project description:BACKGROUND: A compelling ethical rationale supports patient engagement in healthcare research. It is also assumed that patient engagement will lead to research findings that are more pertinent to patients' concerns and dilemmas. However; it is unclear how to best conduct this process. In this systematic review we aimed to answer 4 key questions: what are the best ways to identify patient representatives? How to engage them in designing and conducting research? What are the observed benefits of patient engagement? What are the harms and barriers of patient engagement? METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane, EBSCO, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Business Search Premier, Academic Search Premier and Google Scholar. Included studies were published in English, of any size or design that described engaging patients or their surrogates in research design. We conducted an environmental scan of the grey literature and consulted with experts and patients. Data were analyzed using a non-quantitative, meta-narrative approach. RESULTS: We included 142 studies that described a spectrum of engagement. In general, engagement was feasible in most settings and most commonly done in the beginning of research (agenda setting and protocol development) and less commonly during the execution and translation of research. We found no comparative analytic studies to recommend a particular method. Patient engagement increased study enrollment rates and aided researchers in securing funding, designing study protocols and choosing relevant outcomes. The most commonly cited challenges were related to logistics (extra time and funding needed for engagement) and to an overarching worry of a tokenistic engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Patient engagement in healthcare research is likely feasible in many settings. However, this engagement comes at a cost and can become tokenistic. Research dedicated to identifying the best methods to achieve engagement is lacking and clearly needed.

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, as countries move towards universal health coverage (UHC), public participation in decisionmaking is particularly valuable to inform difficult decisions about priority setting and resource allocation. In South Africa (SA), which is moving towards UHC, public participation in decision-making is entrenched in policy documents yet practical applications are lacking. Engagement methods that are deliberative could be useful in ensuring the public participates in the priority setting process that is evidence-based, ethical, legitimate, sustainable and inclusive. Methods modified for the country context may be more relevant and effective. To prepare for such a deliberative process in SA, we aimed to modify a specific deliberative engagement tool - the CHAT (Choosing All Together) tool for use in a rural setting.MethodsDesktop review of published literature and policy documents, as well as 3 focus groups and modified Delphi method were conducted to identify health topics/issues and related interventions appropriate for a rural setting in SA. Our approach involved a high degree of community and policy-maker/expert participation. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Cost information was drawn from various national sources and an existing actuarial model used in previous CHAT exercises was employed to create the board.ResultsBased on the outcomes, 7 health topics/issues and related interventions specific for a rural context were identified and costed for inclusion. These include maternal, new-born and reproductive health; child health; woman and child abuse; HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis (TB); lifestyle diseases; access; and malaria. There were variations in priorities between the 3 stakeholder groups, with community-based groups emphasizing issues of access. Violence against women and children and malaria were considered important in the rural context.ConclusionThe CHAT SA board reflects health topics/issues specific for a rural setting in SA and demonstrates some of the context-specific coverage decisions that will need to be made. Methodologies that include participatory principles are useful for the modification of engagement tools like CHAT and can be applied in different country contexts in order to ensure these tools are relevant and acceptable. This could in turn impact the success of the implementation, ultimately ensuring more effective priority setting approaches.

Project description:IntroductionThe SCL16A2 gene encodes the thyroid hormone (TH) transporter MCT8. Pathogenic variants result in a reduced TH uptake into the CNS despite high serum T3 concentrations. Patients suffer from severe neurodevelopmental delay and require multidisciplinary care. Since a first compassionate use study in 2008, the development of therapies has recently gained momentum. Treatment strategies range from symptom-based approaches, supplementation with TH or TH-analogs, to gene therapy. All these studies have mainly used surrogate endpoints and clinical outcomes. However, the EMA and FDA strongly encourage researchers to involve patients and their advocacy groups in the design of clinical trials. This should strengthen the patients' perspective and identify clinical endpoints that are clinically relevant to their daily life.MethodsWe involved patient families to define patient-relevant outcomes for MCT8 deficiency. In close collaboration with patient families, we designed a questionnaire asking for their five most preferred therapeutic goals, which, if achieved at least, make a difference in their lives. In addition, we performed a systematic review according to Cochrane recommendations of the published treatment trials.ResultsWe obtained results from 15 families with completed questionnaires from 14 mothers and 8 fathers. Improvement in development, especially in gross motor skills, was most important to the parents. 59% wished for head control and 50% for sitting ability. Another 36% wished for weight gain, 32% for improvement of expressive language skills, and 18% for a reduction of dystonia/spasticity, less dysphagia, and reflux. Paraclinical aspects were least important (5-9%). In a treatment trial (n=46) and compassionate use cases (n=83), the results were mainly inconclusive, partly due to a lack of predefined patient-centered clinical endpoints.DiscussionWe recommend that future trials should define a relevant improvement in "development" and/or other patient-relevant outcomes compared to natural history as treatment goals.

Project description:Background: Decentralization of health systems has made sub-national/regional healthcare systems the backbone of healthcare delivery. These regions are tasked with the difficult responsibility of determining healthcare priorities and resource allocation amidst scarce resources. We aimed to review empirical literature that evaluated priority setting practice at the meso level of health systems. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google scholar databases and supplemented these with manual searching for relevant studies, based on the reference list of selected papers. We only included empirical studies that described and evaluated, or those that only evaluated priority setting practice at the meso-level. A total of 16 papers were identified from LMICs and HICs. We analyzed data from the selected papers by thematic review. Results: Few studies used systematic priority setting processes, and all but one were from HICs. Both formal and informal criteria are used in priority-setting, however, informal criteria appear to be more perverse in LMICs compared to HICs. The priority setting process at the meso-level is a top-down approach with minimal involvement of the community. Accountability for reasonableness was the most common evaluative framework as it was used in 12 of the 16 studies. Efficiency, reallocation of resources and options for service delivery redesign were the most common outcome measures used to evaluate priority setting. Limitations: Our study was limited by the fact that there are very few empirical studies that have evaluated priority setting at the meso-level and there is likelihood that we did not capture all the studies. Conclusions: Improving priority setting practices at the meso level is crucial to strengthening health systems. This can be achieved through incorporating and adapting systematic priority setting processes and frameworks to the context where used, and making considerations of both process and outcome measures during priority setting and resource allocation.

Project description:BackgroundHealth researchers and funders are increasingly consulting with stakeholders to set their research agendas but these activities are rarely evaluated. The Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group (CCCG) conducted a priority-setting project for systematic reviews in partnership with stakeholders (consumers/patients, health professionals, policy-makers and others). In this paper, we aim to describe our evaluation of the project's processes and outcomes.MethodsWe used a 10-element conceptual framework designed to evaluate processes (e.g. stakeholder engagement, use of explicit process) and outcomes (e.g. improved decision-making quality, stakeholder acceptance and understanding) of health priority-setting. Data sources included empirical data (feedback surveys, project documents and CCCG editorial policies) and CCCG staff reflections. Data were analysed using content analysis.ResultsThe project met three and partially met two of the process elements, for example, by engaging key stakeholders throughout the project and using pre-determined and transparent methods that offered multiple and meaningful ways to contribute. The project met three and partially met two of the outcome elements. Stakeholders were satisfied with and accepted the process and an additional six Cochrane Review titles aligned with stakeholder priorities are now being conducted in partnership with stakeholders. The project has also directly influenced the editorial work of CCCG, for example, by shifting its organisational focus towards coproduction, and indirectly influenced the work of Cochrane's prioritisation and coproduction activities. Some areas were identified as having room for improvement, for example, there was low participation by people from diverse backgrounds, stakeholders could contribute to most but not all project stages, and there was no formal way for stakeholders to appeal decisions at project end. In the 3 years since its completion, the Cochrane Reviews are nearing completion but none of the reviews have been published.ConclusionWe demonstrated that our priority-setting methods were broadly in line with best practice and the project resulted in many positive outcomes beyond just identifying the top priorities for research. Our evaluation framework and recommendations for future evaluations may be of use to priority-setting researchers planning similar activities.

Project description:BackgroundNew approaches to the treatment of depression are necessary for patients who do not respond to current treatments or lack access to them because of barriers such as cost, stigma, and provider shortage. Digital interventions for depression are promising; however, low patient engagement could limit their effectiveness.ObjectiveThis systematic literature review (SLR) assessed how participant adherence to and engagement with digital interventions for depression have been measured in the published literature, what levels of adherence and engagement have been reported, and whether higher adherence and increased engagement are linked to increased efficacy.MethodsWe focused on a participant population of adults (aged ≥18 years) with depression or major depressive disorder as the primary diagnosis and included clinical trials, feasibility studies, and pilot studies of digital interventions for treating depression, such as digital therapeutics. We screened 756 unique records from Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane published between January 1, 2000, and April 15, 2022; extracted data from and appraised the 94 studies meeting the inclusion criteria; and performed a primarily descriptive analysis. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc (Princeton, New Jersey, United States) funded this study.ResultsThis SLR encompassed results from 20,111 participants in studies using 47 unique web-based interventions (an additional 10 web-based interventions were not described by name), 15 mobile app interventions, 5 app-based interventions that are also accessible via the web, and 1 CD-ROM. Adherence was most often measured as the percentage of participants who completed all available modules. Less than half (44.2%) of the participants completed all the modules; however, the average dose received was 60.7% of the available modules. Although engagement with digital interventions was measured differently in different studies, it was most commonly measured as the number of modules completed, the mean of which was 6.4 (means ranged from 1.0 to 19.7) modules. The mean amount of time participants engaged with the interventions was 3.9 (means ranged from 0.7 to 8.4) hours. Most studies of web-based (34/45, 76%) and app-based (8/9, 89%) interventions found that the intervention group had substantially greater improvement for at least 1 outcome than the control group (eg, care as usual, waitlist, or active control). Of the 14 studies that investigated the relationship between engagement and efficacy, 9 (64%) found that increased engagement with digital interventions was significantly associated with improved participant outcomes. The limitations of this SLR include publication bias, which may overstate engagement and efficacy, and low participant diversity, which reduces the generalizability.ConclusionsPatient adherence to and engagement with digital interventions for depression have been reported in the literature using various metrics. Arriving at more standardized ways of reporting adherence and engagement would enable more effective comparisons across different digital interventions, studies, and populations.

Dataset Information

Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature.

Publications

Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets