Search

Background: A person‐centred approach in the context of health services delivery implies a biopsychosocial model focusing on all factors that influence the person's health and functioning. Those wishing to monitor change should consider this perspective when they develop and use guidelines to stimulate active consideration of the person's needs, preferences and participation in goal setting, intervention selection and the use of appropriate outcome measures. Objective: To develop a position paper that promotes a person‐centred approach in guideline development and implementation. Design, setting and participants: We used three narrative discussion formats to collect data for achieving consensus: a nominal group technique for the Allied Health Steering Group, an Internet discussion board and a workshop at the annual G‐I‐N conference. We analysed the data for relevant themes to draft recommendations. Results: We built the position paper on the values of the biopsychosocial model. Four key themes for enhancing a person‐centred approach in clinical guidelines emerged: (i) use a joint definition of health‐related quality of life as an essential component of intervention goals, (ii) incorporate the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a framework for considering all domains related to health, (iii) adopt a shared decision‐making method, and (iv) incorporate patient‐reported health outcome measures. The position statement includes 14 recommendations for guideline developers, implementers and users. Conclusion: This position paper describes essential elements for incorporating a person‐centred approach in clinical guidelines. The consensus process provided information about barriers and facilitators that might help us develop strategies for implementing person‐centred care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: For too many people, their care plans are designed without fully accounting for who they are, the lives they live, what matters to them or what they aspire to achieve. We aimed to summarize instruments capable of measuring dimensions of patient–clinician collaboration to make care fit. Methods: We systematically searched several databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science) from inception to September 2021 for studies using quantitative measures to assess, evaluate or rate the work of making care fit by any participant in real‐life clinical encounters. Eligibility was assessed in duplicate. After extracting all items from relevant instruments, we coded them deductively on dimensions relevant to making care fit (as presented in a recent Making Care Fit Manifesto), and inductively on the main action described. Results: We included 189 papers, mostly from North America (N = 83, 44%) and in the context of primary care (N = 54, 29%). Half of the papers (N = 88, 47%) were published in the last 5 years. We found 1243 relevant items to assess efforts of making care fit, included within 151 instruments. Most items related to the dimensions 'Patient‐clinician collaboration: content' (N = 396, 32%) and 'Patient‐clinician collaboration: manner' (N = 382, 31%) and the least related to 'Ongoing and iterative process' (N = 22, 2%) and in 'Minimally disruptive of patient lives' (N = 29, 2%). The items referred to 27 specific actions. Most items referred to 'Informing' (N = 308, 25%) and 'Exploring' (N = 93, 8%), the fewest items referred to 'Following up', 'Comforting' and 'Praising' (each N = 3, 0.2%). Discussion: Measures of the work that patients and clinicians do together to make care fit focus heavily on the content of their collaborations, particularly on exchanging information. Other dimensions and actions previously identified as crucial to making care fit are assessed infrequently or not at all. The breadth of extant measures of making care fit and the lack of appropriate measures of this key construct limit both the assessment and the successful implementation of efforts to improve patient care. Patient Contribution: Patients and caregivers from the 'Making care fit Collaborative' were involved in drafting the dimensions relevant to patient–clinician collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Liver disease is an increasing cause of morbidity and mortality in the United Kingdom and can be challenging to live with in the advanced stages. There has been little research exploring the healthcare experiences of UK individuals with decompensated disease when the liver cannot carry out its functions properly. A PhD research project was developed with people who have liver disease to explore care experiences in decompensated advanced liver disease. Public involvement (PI) is an essential aspect of meaningful health research, and this paper reports on the progression of our PI approach in this ongoing study. Objective: To embed PI throughout the research project to ensure that the study is meaningful to individuals with liver disease and the people who support them. Methods: The research adopts a Constructivist Grounded Theory methodology to develop a theory of care experience. Various PI approaches were considered in developing the PI strategy for this qualitative study. Initially, Embedded consultation was the preferred model, which has evolved to include aspects of collaboration and coproduction. A PI group was set up to oversee the project through the national public engagement website VOICE, and reflections on PI from three members of the group are included in this paper to illuminate the PI process. Results: Six individuals with liver disease and three carers from across the United Kingdom are part of an ongoing PI group. Their role includes commenting on the findings of the systematic literature review for this project and contributing to decisions about recruitment, data collection and data analysis. Additionally, they had a direct impact on changing the focus of the research. The PI group will continue involvement until the completion of the project. Conclusion: Successfully embedding PI into doctoral research, as demonstrated in this project, requires commitment, planning and dedication to reciprocal working for the benefit of PI contributors as well as the research. This approach could be adopted by other postgraduate researchers. Patient or Public Contribution: This project is overseen by the PI group, whose contribution is described throughout, including reflections from three PI group members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) in the context of limited resources will require prioritising the most vulnerable and ensuring health policies and services are responsive to their needs. One way of addressing this is through the engagement of marginalised voices in the priority setting process. Public engagement approaches that enable group level deliberation as well as individual level preference capturing might be valuable in this regard, but there are limited examples of their practical application, and gaps in understanding their outcomes, especially with rural populations. Objective: To address this gap, we implemented a modified priority setting tool (Choosing All Together—CHAT) that enables individuals and groups to make trade‐offs to demonstrate the type of health services packages that may be acceptable to a rural population. The paper presents the findings from the individual choices as compared to the group choices, as well as the differences among the individual choices using this tool. Methods: Participants worked in groups and as individuals to allocate stickers representing the available budget to different health topics and interventions using the CHAT tool. The allocations were recorded at each stage of the study. We calculated the median and interquartile range across study participants for the topic totals. To examine differences in individual choices, we performed Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Results: The results show that individual interests were mostly aligned with societal ones, and there were no statistically significant differences between the individual and group choices. However, there were some statistically significant differences between individual priorities based on demographic characteristics like age. Discussion: The study demonstrates that giving individuals greater control and agency in designing health services packages can increase their participation in the priority setting process, align individual and community priorities, and potentially enhance the legitimacy and acceptability of priority setting. Methods that enable group level deliberation and individual level priority setting may be necessary to reconcile plurality. The paper also highlights the importance of capturing the details of public engagement processes and transparently reporting on these details to ensure valuable outcomes. Public Contribution: The facilitator of the CHAT groups was a member from the community and underwent training from the research team. The fieldworkers were also from the community and were trained and paid to capture the data. The participants were all members of the rural community‐ the study represents their priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Collaborations between patient organisations (POs) and the pharmaceutical industry can help identify and address the unmet needs of people living with a disease. In Alzheimer's disease (AD), the scale and complexity of the current unmet needs call for a broad and cross‐sectoral collaboration, including people living with Alzheimer's (PLWA), their care partners and the wider research community. Objective: This study aimed to describe learnings from the Finding Alzheimer's Solutions Together (F.A.S.T.) Council, a collaboration between POs and Roche, convened to better understand the unmet needs of PLWA and their care partners. Results: 1. Learnings from the collaboration, including clarifying objectives and members' expectations upfront, and establishing a set of guiding values and engagement principles. 2. Insights and recommendations for improving care in AD, including a wide range of unmet needs and potential solutions, systematically captured throughout the PLWA journey. These have resulted in several published reports and other outcomes, including (1) 'Portraits of care', highlighting the role of care partners, and the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on care; (2) Clinical trial guidebook, recommending how PLWA and care partner experience can be incorporated into trial design; (3) 'Commitments Catalogue', highlighting progress by governmental organisations in achieving their commitments; and (4) a report to guide policy on improving diversity, equity and inclusion in clinical trials. Conclusions: Close collaboration between POs and the pharmaceutical industry in AD can enable effective research, in which PLWA and care partners are engaged as 'experts through experience' to help identify key unmet needs and co‐create solutions with the wider AD research community. This paper and the work undertaken by the F.A.S.T. Council may act as a blueprint for meaningful collaboration between POs and the pharmaceutical industry. Patient or Public Contribution: The paper reports the collaboration between POs, the F.A.S.T. Council and Roche to progress towards a future in which PLWA can live fulfilling lives with their disease managed well. Clinical Trial Registration: Not applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: To guide good practices in patient and public involvement (PPI), several calls have been made to share detailed accounts of practical experiences. We describe our collaboration with young people with a chronic condition (YPCC) in the development, testing and implementation of the digital communication tool MyBoT (Map your Burden of Treatment). Methods: MyBoT was developed by a team of academic researchers, some of whom were practising care providers, YPCC and designers. In addition to the two co‐researchers in the research team, various groups of YPCC were involved in decision‐making through participation in a design session, workshops and a dialogue session. The Involvement Matrix was used to reflect on the PPI of all YPCC. Results: Initially, the two co‐researchers were involved in the roles of informer and co‐thinker, but their decision‐making power within the study increased over time. In the final stages of the study, the co‐researchers and researchers became partners. The other YPCC who participated in the different sessions and workshops were co‐thinkers in all stages of the study. Conclusion: The PPI of two YPCCs as co‐researchers within the research team ensured continuous involvement, whereas the PPI of various groups of YPCCs guaranteed a representative and inclusive approach. Researchers play an essential role in bringing all perspectives together, integrating them within the technical and financial constraints and ultimately building a tool that is tailored to its users' needs. Patient or Public Contribution: YPCC played a significant role in the present study. Two YPCC—who are also co‐authors of this paper—were involved in all stages of this project as members of the research team. In addition, various YPCCs were involved in the development, testing and implementation stage of MyBoT by organizing design sessions, workshops and a dialogue session. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Neonatal care is complex, involving multiple people and technologies within a community of care. When preterm babies are cared for far from home and/or transferred between units, the whole community of care (and particularly parent participation) is disrupted. Although previous studies have captured subjective experiences of parents, there has been little research exploring the material practices undertaken by parents as a consequence of place‐of‐care decisions, or the social organisation of those practices. Methods: As part of a wider study exploring optimal place‐of‐care, semistructured interviews were conducted between July 2018 and October 2019 with 48 parents (36 families) with one or more preterm babies (born at 27–31 weeks gestation) cared for in a neonatal unit in the last 12 months. Findings: We highlight parents' labour‐intensive and stressful work to: (1) parent in the neonatal care community (an oversight role that goes beyond contemporary notions of 'involvement'); (2) create continuity amid place‐of‐care disruptions; and (3) adapt to the managerial logics of neonatal care settings. Our analysis focuses on the work generated by managerial systems that organise place‐of‐care decision‐making and other efficiency‐focused practices. Parents are absorbed into negotiating institutional systems and diverted from routine parenting activities. Conclusion: Those involved in the organisation and management of neonatal care should take account of how managerial systems impact parents' workload, ability to participate in their baby's community of care and, ultimately, on the wellbeing and development of babies and their families. Patient or Public Contribution: The OPTI‐PREM study embedded parents' experiences of neonatal care into the research, through a discrete workstream that employed qualitative methodology to capture parents' experiences—as reported in this paper. The OPTI‐PREM project was also supported by a Bliss volunteer parent panel, which was involved in designing and overseeing the research. Bliss 'champion[s] the right for every baby born premature or sick to receive the best care by supporting families, campaigning for change and supporting professionals and enabling life‐changing research' (https://www.bliss.org.uk/about-us/about-bliss). A representative of Bliss is a co‐author of this manuscript, and a parent representative (named in the Acknowledgements) provided feedback during its preparation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the implementation of person‐centred care (PCC) has gained momentum in healthcare systems, it is not always obvious why it is an important objective in clinical settings and educational institutions that train future healthcare professionals. Various conceptions about PCC have flourished, such as that it only works in certain healthcare contexts, it is the same as the patient making all their own healthcare decisions, it is too demanding for most patients, the word 'patient' may no longer be used, the care provided is already person‐centred, and that there is simply not enough time and resources to achieve it. This viewpoint paper aims to problematize these conceptions and may be used for didactical and reflective exercises that support the transition towards more person‐centred healthcare. Patient or Public Contribution: The Person Council for patients and carers at the University of Gothenburg provided focus group input on and validated the occurrence of the conceptions discussed in the present paper. The person council consists of a group of persons with many years of personal experiences of health care, either as patients and/or relatives/carers. One member of the person council who is also a designer and artist created the illustration for the article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The role of patient participation and representation during crises, such as the COVID‐19 pandemic, has been under‐researched. Existing studies paint a pessimistic picture of patient representation during the pandemic. However, there are indications that patient representatives have adapted to the new situation and can contribute to the resilience of healthcare systems. This paper aims to further explore the potential contribution of patient representatives for healthcare system resilience during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods: The study used a qualitative approach. We conducted a thematic analysis on the following data: interviews with client council members (n = 32) and representatives from patient organizations (n = 6) and focus groups (n = 2) to investigate patient representation on both the national policy level and organizational level in the Netherlands. Results: We identified the crisis discourse, the dependent position, the diversity of patient perspectives and the layered decision‐making structure as themes that help to understand what made patient representation in pandemic times a struggle for national and local patient representatives. The analysis of the subjects these representatives put forward during decision‐making shows that their input can play an important role in broadening discussions, challenging decisions, and suggesting alternatives during a crisis. We identified several strategies (e.g., collaborating with other actors, proactively putting subjects on the policy agenda, finding new ways of contacting their 'constituency') used by the patient representatives studied to exert influence despite the difficulties encountered. Conclusions: The struggle for patient representation during pandemic decision‐making is a missed opportunity for resilient healthcare systems as these representatives can play a role in opening up discussions and putting different perspectives to the fore. Moreover, the adaptive strategies used by representatives to influence decision‐making offer lessons for future representation activities. However, adaptations to the crisis decision‐making structure are also needed to enable patient representatives to play their role. Patient Contribution: We conducted interviews with patient representatives and discussed our preliminary findings with patient representatives during the focus groups. Zorgbelang, a patient organization supporting client councils and enabling and organizing patient participation for organizations and municipalities, was partner in this research and contributed to the interview guide, conducting interviews and focus groups. Additionally, the analysis made by the first author was discussed and refined multiple times with the partners of Zorgbelang and one of them co‐authored this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Despite high levels of mental ill‐health amongst young people (aged 15–30), this group demonstrates low help‐seeking and high drop‐out from mental health services (MHS). Whilst shared decision‐making can assist people in receiving appropriate and effective health care, young people frequently report that they do not feel involved in treatment decisions. The current study focused on co‐design of a clinical education and participant information programme for the Brain and Mind Centre Youth Model of Care. This model, which articulates a youth‐focused form of highly personalised and measurement‐based care, is designed to promote shared decision‐making between young people and clinical service providers. Methods: We conducted workshops with 24 young people (16–31; MAge = 21.5) who had accessed mental health services. Participants were asked what advice they would give to young people entering services, before giving advice on existing materials. Workshops were conducted and transcripts were coded using thematic analysis by two lived experience researchers and a clinical researcher. Results: Young people found it empowering to be educated on transdiagnostic models of mental illness, namely clinical staging, which gives them a better understanding of why certain treatments may be inappropriate and ineffective, and thus reduce self‐blame. Similarly, young people had limited knowledge of links between mental health and other life domains and found it helpful to be educated on multidisciplinary treatment options. Measurement‐based care was seen as an important method of improving shared decision‐making between young people and health professionals; however, to facilitate shared decision‐making, young people also wanted better information on their rights in care and more support to share their expertise in their own needs, values and treatment preferences. Conclusions: These findings will inform the delivery of the further development and implementation of a youth‐specific clinical education and participant information programme for the BMC Youth Model. Patient or Public Contribution: Workshops were facilitated by researchers with lived expertise in mental ill‐health (A.H. and/or C.G.) and a clinical researcher (who has expertise as an academic and a clinical psychologist). A.H. and C.G. were also involved in conceptualisation, analysis, interpretation, review and editing of this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with advanced incurable cancer face difficult decisions about palliative treatment options towards their end of life. However, they are often not provided with the appropriate information and support that is needed to make informed decisions. This review aimed to identify contexts and mechanisms associated with communication tools, patient decision‐aids and shared decision‐making (SDM) approaches that influence patient outcomes. Methods: We used a realist review method to search for published studies of patients (adults > 18) with advanced cancer who were expected to make a decision about palliative treatment and/or supportive care in consultation with healthcare practitioners. We appraised and synthesised literature describing the contexts of (when and how) decision aids and SDM approaches are used, and how these contexts interact with mechanisms (resources and reasoning) which impact patient outcomes. Stakeholders including academics, palliative healthcare professionals (HCPs) and people with lived experience of supporting people with advanced incurable cancer contributed to identifying explanatory accounts. These accounts were documented, analysed and consolidated to contribute to the development of a programme theory. Results: From the 33 included papers, we consolidated findings into 20 explanatory accounts to develop a programme theory that explains key contexts and mechanisms that influence patient and SDM. Contexts include underlying patients' and HCPs' attitudes and approaches. These need to be understood in relation to key mechanisms, including presenting information in multiple formats and providing adequate time and opportunities to prepare for and revisit decisions. Contexts influenced mechanisms which then influence the levels of patient decisional satisfaction, conflict and regret. Conclusions: Our programme theory highlights mechanisms that are important in supporting shared treatment decisions for advanced noncurative cancer. The findings are informative for developing and evaluating interventions to improve understanding and involvement in SDM for patients with advanced incurable cancer. Patient and Public Contribution: We included patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives in four stakeholder meetings. PPI helped to define the scope of the review, identify their unique experiences and perspectives, synthesise their perspectives with our review findings, make decisions about which theories we included in our programme theory and develop recommendations for policy and practice and future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Informal care features high on the policy agenda of many countries to deal with workforce shortages. As a consequence, care provision increasingly takes place in the care triad of care recipients, informal caregivers and care professionals. How collaboration between care partners takes shape depends on how the different partners perceive this collaboration. This paper aims to investigate the relative importance of the different aspects of collaboration from the perspectives of care recipients, informal caregivers and care professionals in the context of the care for older persons in The Netherlands. Methods: Using Q‐methodology, 32 participants ranked 28 statements that reflect different aspects of collaboration in the care triad and explained their ranking during a follow‐up interview. Participants comprised 9 older persons, 10 informal caregivers and 13 care professionals. Data were analysed using by‐person factor analysis to identify common patterns in the rankings of the statements. Emerging patterns were interpreted and described as views on collaboration using aggregated rankings and qualitative data from the interviews. Results: Five distinct views on collaboration were found: (1) Emphasizing warm collaboration, (2) trusting care professional's expertise, (3) open and compassionate care professionals, (4) responsive decision‐making by autonomous care professionals and (5) prioritizing care recipient's and informal caregiver's interests. Care recipients and/or informal caregivers were associated with views 1, 3 and, 5, whereas care professionals were associated with all five views. Conclusions: Our study highlights the importance of recognizing the potential diversity of views between and within different partner groups in care triads. Governmental and organizational policy makers, as well as healthcare professionals who aim to increase or support the involvement of informal caregivers, should take this heterogeneity into consideration. Patient or Public Contribution: An advisory board of older persons (care recipients and informal caregivers) was involved in the recruitment of the participants, the formulation of the statements and the reflection on the findings of the study and potential implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Acute hospital wards can be difficult places for many people living with dementia. Promoting comfort and wellbeing can be challenging in this environment. There is little evidence‐based support for professionals working on acute care wards on how to respond to distress and maximise comfort and wellbeing among patients living with dementia. Objectives: Our overall aim was to codesign an evidence‐based easy‐to‐use heuristic decision‐support framework, which was acceptable and practical but acknowledges the complex and acute nature of caring for patients with dementia in the hospital. This paper presents the development process and resulting framework. Methods: A codesign study was informed by data from (1) a literature review of the care and management of people living with dementia in acute hospitals; (2) a cohort study of comfort and discomfort in people with dementia in acute hospitals; and (3) interviews with family carers and health care professionals. We synthesised evidence from these data sources and presented to key stakeholders through codesign meetings and workshops to produce our decision‐support framework. Results: The framework consists of a series of flowcharts and operates using a three‐stage process of: (1) assess comfort/discomfort; (2) consider causes of discomfort; and (3) address patient needs to manage the discomfort. Conclusion: Working with key stakeholders, synthesising diverse quantitative and qualitative evidence to build a clinical framework is a feasible approach to help address the needs of patients living with dementia in an acute hospital setting. The result is a framework which is now ready for evaluation and implementation. Patient and Public Contribution: We worked closely with people living with dementia and family carers throughout this study, including the development of the study protocol with input on study development and design, through to inclusion in stakeholder workshops and codesign of the decision support framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We report on a study of a facilitated interactive group learning approach, through Collaborative Implementation Groups (CIGs), established to enhance capacity for equity‐sensitive evaluation of healthcare services to inform local decision‐making: (1) What was the experience of participants of the CIGs? (2) How was knowledge mobilisation achieved? (3) What are the key elements that enhance the process of coproducing equity‐sensitive evaluations? Methods: A thematic analysis of qualitative data obtained from focus group (FG) discussions and semistructured interviews exploring the experiences of participants. All FGs included representation of participants from different projects across the programme. Interviews were conducted with a member from each of the teams participating in the first cohort after their final workshop. Results: We identified four themes to illustrate how the approach to delivering intensive and facilitated training supported equity‐sensitive evaluations of local healthcare services: (1) Creating the setting for coproduction and knowledge mobilisation; (2) establishing a common purpose, meaning and language for reducing health inequalities; (3) making connections and brokering relationships and (4) challenging and transforming the role of evaluation. Conclusion: We report on the implementation of a practical example of engaged scholarship, where teams of healthcare staff were supported with resources, interactive training and methodological advice to evaluate their own services, enabling organisations to assemble timely practical and relevant evidence that could feed directly into local decision‐making. By encouraging mixed teams of practitioners, commissioners, patients, the public and researchers to work together to coproduce their evaluations, the programme also aimed to systematise health equity into service change. The findings of our study illustrate that the approach to delivering training gave participants the tools and confidence to address their organisation's stated aims of reducing health inequalities, coproduce evaluations of their local services and mobilise knowledge from a range of stakeholders. Patient or Public Contribution: The research question was developed collaboratively with researchers, partner organisations and public advisers (PAs). PAs were involved in meetings to agree on the focus of this research and to plan the analysis. N. T. is a PA and coauthor, contributing to the interpretation of findings and drafting of the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Involving youth with severe communication disabilities in health research is foregrounded in a perspective of rights and participation. Researchers aligned with a participatory and inclusive research agenda recommend that involving youth in health research should be a deliberate and well‐planned process. However, limited examples exist of how researchers can facilitate the involvement of youth with severe communication disabilities in research projects. Method: The aim of this paper was to describe the application of the Involvement Matrix as a conceptual framework to guide the three phases of a research project with youth with severe communication disabilities. Results: Six youth aged 19–34 years consented to be involved in the project. All youth had a severe communication disability and used augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) to support their involvement in the research project. The Involvement Matrix provided a structure to delineate four involvement roles in three research phases: In Phase 1, youth were listeners to research information and advisors in the needs analysis. In Phase 2, as advisors and decision‐makers, youth provided their opinions on selecting picture communication symbols for health materials. In Phase 3, as partners, they were copresenters at an online youth forum. Conclusion: The Involvement Matrix was used to plan and implement the involvement of youth with severe communication disabilities in codeveloping health materials for use during the COVID‐19 pandemic. The Involvement Matrix can be applied together with AAC to enable meaningful involvement of youth in a health research project as listeners, advisors, decision‐makers and partners. Patient or Public Contribution: This study project was codeveloped with youth with severe communication disabilities who use AAC in South Africa. A person with lived experience was involved as an advisor to the health material development process and in the drafting of the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Analysis of video data was conducted of validated assessments with people with dementia as part of a feasibility control study comparing a lifelong learning service with other dementia services. Objective: The aim was to provide a new perspective on what occurs during the assessment process when using validated measures in research and explore which strategies people with dementia use to manage their participation. Design: Video recordings were made of pre‐ and postintervention assessments of people with dementia. An initial pilot analysis of 10 videos of the pre‐assessments was conducted. Setting: Lifelong learning services and other dementia services situated in six municipalities in Northern Denmark took part in this study, with 55 people with dementia participating. Results: The themes identified were: 'State of mind' and 'Mental resources', showing how these aspects influenced the participants' reactions and the strategies they used. Discussion: The results are discussed in relation to how individual personality traits influence the assessment process and the way a person with dementia will manage the situation. Conclusion: The assessment situation is complex and can be influenced by the strategies adopted by individuals with dementia as they try to manage the assessment process. Patient or Public Contribution: People with dementia supported the decision‐making for the choice of validated measure used within this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patient‐centred care (PCC) has come to the forefront for many institutions, funding agencies and clinicians, and is integrated into care. Does a disconnect in understanding still exist between patients, healthcare organizations and clinicians in what PCC means and how outstanding issues might be addressed? Methods: We conducted interviews and focus groups with self‐reported chronic care patients and clinicians providing care to these patients exploring PCC experiences, expectations and practices. These data were initially analysed using inductive thematic analysis. This paper reports on the findings of a secondary analysis examining the alignment between patients and clinicians on five key predetermined dimensions of PCC. Results: Eighteen patients participated, representing a range of chronic conditions. Thirty‐eight clinicians participated. One thousand and three hundred patient and 1800 clinician codes were identified and grouped into 5 main topics with 140 unique themes (patients) and 9 main topics with 54 unique themes (clinicians). A total of 166 quotes (patient = 93, clinician = 73) were identified for this PCC definition alignment analysis. Partial or complete alignment of patient and clinician perspectives was seen on most dimensions. Key disconnects were observed in patient involvement, patient empowerment and clinician–patient communication. Only 18% of patients reported experiencing patient‐centred communication, whereas 57% of clinicians reported using patient‐focused communication approaches. Conclusion: Overall, study patients and clinicians endorse that many PCC elements occur. This study highlights key differences between patients and clinicians, suggesting persistent challenges. Clinician participants relayed their PCC approaches of informing and educating patients; however, patients often perceive these approaches as didactic, role‐diminishing and noncollaborative. Collaborative approaches, such as shared decision‐making, hold promise to bridge persistent PCC gaps and should be integrated into medical education programmes. Patient or Public Contribution: This project was conceived and executed with a co‐design approach wherein patients with chronic conditions who are trained in research (i.e., see descriptions of Patient and Community Engagement Research in the text) were involved in all stages of the research project alongside other researchers on the project team. Healthcare providers were involved as participants and as principal investigators in the project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is limited evidence of genuine equal partnership where power is shared with young people with mental health difficulties throughout all research stages, particularly in data collection and analysis. Objective: To describe how our qualitative study, exploring young peoples' perceptions on the feasibility of using technology to detect mental health deterioration, was co‐produced using principles of co‐production, whilst reflecting on impact, challenges and recommendations. Methods: Young people with experience of mental health difficulties were appointed and then worked with researchers throughout all research stages. The study was evaluated against the five principles of co‐production. Reflections from researchers and young people were collected throughout. Results: Seven young people formed an initial Young People's Advisory Group (YPAG); three became co‐researchers. Reflection was key throughout the process. Sharing power became easier and more evident as trust, confidence and mutual respect grew over time, particularly after a safe space was established. The safe space was crucial for open discussions, and our WhatsApp group enabled continual communication, support and shared decision‐making. The resulting co‐produced topic guide, coding framework, thematic map, papers and presentations demonstrated significant impact. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative mental health study to be co‐produced using the principles of co‐production. Our rigorous assessment can be utilized as an informative document to help others to produce meaningful co‐produced future research. Although co‐production takes time, it makes significant impact to the research, researchers and co‐researchers. Flexible funding for spontaneous suggestions from co‐researchers and more time for interview training is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the management of epidemics, like COVID‐19, trade‐offs have to be made between reducing mortality and morbidity and minimizing socioeconomic and political consequences. Traditionally, epidemic management (EM) has been guided and executed attentively by experts and policymakers. It can, however, still be controversial in the public sphere. In the last decades, public engagement (PE) has been successfully applied in various aspects of healthcare. This leads to the question if PE could be implemented in EM decision‐making. Methods: From June to October 2020, seven deliberative discussion focus groups were executed with 35 Dutch citizens between 19 and 84 years old. Their views on PE in COVID‐19 management were explored. The deliberative approach allows for the education of participants on the topic before the discussion. The benefits, barriers, timing and possible forms of PE in EM were discussed. Results: Almost all participants supported PE in EM, as they thought that integrating their experiences and ideas would benefit the quality of EM, and increase awareness and acceptance of measures. A fitting mode for PE was consultation, as it was deemed important to provide the public with possibilities to share ideas and feedback; however, final authority remained with experts. The publics could particularly provide input about communication campaigns and control measures. PE could be executed after the first acute phase of the epidemic and during evaluations. Conclusions: This paper describes the construction of an empirically informed framework about the values and conditions for PE in EM from the perspective of the public. Participants expressed support to engage certain population groups and considered it valuable for the quality and effectiveness of EM; however, they expressed doubts about the feasibility of PE and the capabilities of citizens. In future studies, these results should be confirmed by a broader audience. Patient or Public Contribution: No patients or members of the public were involved in the construction and execution of this study. This study was very exploratory, to gain a first insight into the views of the public in the Netherlands, and will be used to develop engagement practices accordingly. At this stage, the involvement of the public was not yet appropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Shared decision‐making has been shown to improve the quality of life in metastatic breast cancer patients in high‐literacy and high‐resource settings. However, limited studies have examined the cultural preferences of metastatic breast cancer patients with shared decision‐making implementation and the barriers encountered in an Asian setting where societal norms predominate and physician decision‐making is at the forefront. This paper aims to identify (1) barriers to practising shared decision‐making faced by healthcare professionals and patients and (2) strategies for implementing shared decision‐making in the context of metastatic breast cancer management in Malaysia. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study involving 12 patients diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer, 16 healthcare professionals and 5 policymakers from surgical and oncology departments at public healthcare centres in Malaysia. Semi‐structured in‐depth interviews and focus group discussions were conducted. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the thematic approach. Nvivo software was used to manage and analyse the data. Results: Five main themes emerged from the study: healthcare provider–patient communication, workforce availability, cultural and belief systems, goals of care and paternalism versus autonomy. Other strategies proposed to overcome barriers to implementing shared decision‐making were training of healthcare professionals and empowering nurses to manage patients' psychosocial issues. Conclusion: This study found that practising shared decision‐making in the public health sector remains challenging when managing patients with metastatic breast cancer. The utilization of decision‐making tools, patient empowerment and healthcare provider training may help address the system and healthcare provider–patient barriers identified in this study. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients were involved in the study design, recruitment and analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Paediatric patients with disorders that involve brain functioning are particularly vulnerable with respect to including them in shared decision‐making. Current tools are mostly paper or digital patient information. We lay the groundwork for improving engagement with a concept that we coined 'the Self‐Portrait'. The main goals were to identify (1) obstacles and (2) design parameters that enable patient participation. Methods: A research‐through‐design approach was utilized in nine patients with brain‐related disorders (4–12 years), 15 parents and 15 medical professionals, involving contextual research (interviews and observations) within the paediatric hospital and patients' homes and codesign. Sensitizing materials and early instances of design solutions were deployed as catalysts for communication. Five rounds of enriched interviews and design reviews were thematically analysed to answer the research questions. Results: Obstacles to child involvement were related to children's level of understanding, the time and energy necessary for information processing and lack of perceived relevance of the information. Patients' engagement is supported by design features that extend the time frame of interaction beyond the consultation, transfer information interactively and give control and influence during the consultation. Conclusion: Obstacles were detected that complicate child engagement, which differ between stakeholders. Promising design features were identified that have the potential to play an important role in enabling active child involvement. These findings show that applying principles of human‐centred design research and codesign can bring together patients, parents and medical professionals around a tool that provides a shared language and focus, which are prerequisites to increase child engagement. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients, parents and clinicians contributed as design informants during contextual research and design reviews. Clinicians provided feedback on the initial outcomes of thematic analysis. Two researchers assisted in consensus sessions during the thematic analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This paper aims to explore the care processes that best exemplify person‐centred care during physical activity (PA) for long‐term care (LTC) residents with dementia from the perspectives of substitute decision‐makers (SDMs) and LTC home staff. Little is known about how person‐centred care is reflected during PA for residents with dementia, or the barriers and benefits to enacting person‐centred care during PA. Methods: Semistructured interviews were used to collect SDMs and LTC home staffs' perspectives on the importance of person‐centred care during PA from two LTC homes in Canada. The McCormack and McCance person‐centredness framework was used to guide thematic content analysis of responses. Results: SDM (n = 26) and staff (n = 21) identified actions categorized under the sympathetic presence or engagement care processes from the person‐centredness framework as most reflecting person‐centred care. Benefits of person‐centred care during PA were categorized into three themes: functional and physical, behavioural and communication and psychosocial improvements. Barriers to person‐centred care during PA identified were lack of time, opportunities for meaningful activity in LTC setting and staff experiences with resident aggression. Significance: Understanding the care processes that are most recognized as person‐centred care and valued by SDMs and LTC home staff has implications for education and training. Insights into SDMs' care expectations regarding person‐centred care can inform staff about which actions should be prioritized to meet care expectations and can foster relationships to the benefit of residents with dementia. Patient and Public Contribution: Study participants were not involved in the development of research questions, research design or outcome measures of this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Technological advances have led to cancer prognostication that is increasingly accurate but often unalterable. However, a reliable prognosis of limited life expectancy can cause psychological distress. People should carefully consider offers of prognostication, but little is known about how and why they decide on prognostication. Using uveal melanoma (UM) patients, we aimed to identify (i) how and why do people with UM decide to accept prognostication and (ii) alignment and divergence of their decision‐making from conceptualizations of a 'well‐considered' decision. Methods: UM provides a paradigm to elucidate clinical and ethical perspectives on prognostication, because prognostication is reliable but prognoses are largely nonameliorable. We used qualitative methods to examine how and why 20 UM people with UM chose prognostication. We compared findings to a template of 'well‐considered' decision‐making, where 'well‐considered' decisions involve consideration of all likely outcomes. Results: Participants wanted prognostication to reduce future worry about uncertain life expectancy. They spontaneously spoke of hoping for a good prognosis when making their decisions, but largely did not consider the 50% possibility of a poor prognosis. When pressed, they argued that a poor outcome at least brings certainty. Conclusions: While respecting decisions as valid expressions of participants' wishes, we are concerned that they did not explicitly consider the realistic possibility of a poor outcome and how this would affect them. Thus, it is difficult to see their decisions as 'well‐considered'. We propose that nondirective preference exploration techniques could help people to consider the possibility of a poor outcome. Patient or Public Contribution: This paper is a direct response to a patient‐identified and defined problem that arose in therapeutic and conversational discourse. The research was informed by the responses of patient participants, as we used the material from interviews to dynamically shape the interview guide. Thus, participants' ideas drove the analysis and shaped the interviews to come. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To guide the development of high‐quality care for people with multiple chronic conditions, partners of the European Joint Action CHRODIS developed the Integrated Multimorbidity Care Model. To assess its suitability for improving care for people with multimorbidity in the Netherlands, the model was piloted in a primary care setting with both patients and care providers. Aim: This paper reports on the patient perspective, and aims to explore the priorities, underlying values and preferences for care of people with multimorbidity. Participants and methods: Twenty persons with multimorbidity (selected from general practice registries) participated in a focus group or telephone interview. Subsequently, a questionnaire was completed by 863 persons with multimorbidity registered with 14 general practices. Qualitative data were thematically analysed and quantitative data by means of descriptive statistics. Results: Frequently prioritized elements of care were the use of shared electronic health records, regular comprehensive assessments, self‐management support and shared decision making, and care coordination. Preferences for how these elements should be specifically addressed differed according to individual values (eg weighing safety against privacy) and needs (eg ways of coping with multimorbidity). Conclusion: The JA‐CHRODIS Integrated Multimorbidity Care Model reflects the priorities and preferences for care of people with multimorbidity in the Netherlands, which supports its relevance to guide the development of person‐centred integrated care for people with multiple chronic conditions in the Netherlands. Patient contribution: European patient experts contributed to the development and applicability assessment of the JA‐CHRODIS Integrated Multimorbidity Care Model; Dutch patients participated in focus groups, interviews and a survey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Latinos in the United States represent a disproportionate burden of illness and disease and face barriers to accessing health care and related resources. Culturally tailored, evidence‐based interventions hold promise in addressing many of these challenges. Yet, ensuring patient voice is vital in the successful development and implementation of such interventions. Thus, this paper examines the application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to inform the augmentation and implementation of an evidence‐based chronic disease self‐management programme for underserved Latinos living with both minor depression and chronic illness. The process of AHP allows for direct input from the individuals that would utilize such a programme, including afflicted individuals, their family members and the health educators/promotores that would be responsible for implementation. Specifically, 45 participants, including 15 individuals with chronic disease, 15 family members/caregivers and 15 promotores, partook in the Stakeholder Values Questionnaire, which elicited preferences and values regarding major goals, processes and content for the intervention. AHP was employed to analyse pairwise comparison ratings and to determine differences and similarities across stakeholder groups. This analytical technique allowed for the adaptation of the EBI to stakeholders' specific priorities and preferences and facilitated complex decision‐making. Findings not only shed light on similarities and differences between stakeholder groups, but also the magnitude of these priorities and preferences and allowed the intervention to be driven by the participants, themselves. Applying AHP was a unique opportunity to optimize the decision‐making process to inform cultural adaptation of an EBI while considering multiple viewpoints systematically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Internationally, cultural factors are associated with vaccine uptake and completion in ethnic minority communities. Whilst Australia has achieved high human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, little is known about how culture or ethnicity influences HPV vaccination engagement. To address these gaps, we partnered with our Local Health District to explore how one culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) community engages with school and HPV vaccination. Methods: We adapted a participatory research method (the World Café) to engage one local CALD community—the Macedonian community (Our bi‐cultural researcher and participants preferred the term 'Macedonia' rather than The Republic of North Macedonia as outlined in the 2018 Prespa agreement) in New South Wales (Australia)—to discuss HPV and school vaccination. Our qualitative analysis combined deductive codes taken from the Tailoring Immunization Programme framework, inductive codes guided by narrative inquiry (temporality, sociality and place) and previously known vaccination 'trust' frameworks. Results: In late 2019, 31 local Macedonian community members were purposely recruited for two World Cafés (n = 15 mothers/grandmothers and n = 16 young adults). Our themes reveal a community narrative grounded in historical vaccine experiences, family views on vaccination and a general trust in schools. Participants collectively discussed how 'increasing knowledge' and 'tailoring health communications' could strengthen community vaccine decision‐making. Conclusion: This study demonstrates how research partnerships and participatory methods can be applied in CALD community settings to research engagement with school and HPV vaccination. Our World Café dialogues highlight a positive narrative about vaccines, where community vaccination behaviours were built on multilayer trust relationships despite low vaccine knowledge. Our findings further knowledge around 'public trust' in school vaccination, highlighting the importance of existing (or missing) trust relationships when tailoring vaccine communication to local CALD communities. Patient or Public Contribution: Participants who took part in the World Cafes were all local Macedonian community parents or young adults who have been or will be exposed to the health services offered by school‐based HPV vaccination. Thus, all the data collected came from their personal experiences with the school vaccination programme, or how they expect to participate in the programme. To ensure our study design was culturally appropriate and tailored to the Macedonian community, we engaged with the relevant local health stakeholders (the bi‐cultural Multicultural Health Officer and Multicultural Health Service Manager Programme Director) to adapt and refine the World Café method for this context and setting. Our local health stakeholders also reviewed our preliminary findings, assisted with data interpretation and participated in manuscript editing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dementia can have a profound impact on decision making. People living with dementia (PLwD) often need to make decisions about health care, and, as dementia progresses, decisions may need to be made on their behalf. Specific interventions may support this process. Review Question: What interventions are effective in improving shared decision making or surrogate decision making on the health care of PLwD? Methods: A narrative systematic review of existing literature was conducted. Seven databases, grey literature and key journals were searched. After exclusion by title, abstracts then full texts were reviewed collaboratively to manage any disagreements. Results: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Two articles, including one RCT, evaluated decision aids regarding the use of enteral feeding in advanced dementia. Six further articles, including five RCTs, were found which evaluated the effectiveness of interventions supporting patients or carers with advance care planning. Conclusion: Decision‐making interventions typically consist of multiple components which aim to establish preferences for future health care. Advance care planning interventions supported aspects of the decision‐making processes but their impact on decision quality was rarely evaluated. Interventions did not increase the concordance of decisions with a person's values. The decision‐specific interventions are unlikely to produce benefit in other decision contexts. Patient Involvement: Two caregivers, a public stakeholder group and a carer group were consulted in the design of the wider study to which this review relates. Six PLwD refined the research questions addressed in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is widespread agreement that the public should be engaged in health‐care decision making. One method of engagement that is gaining prominence is the citizens’ jury, which places citizens at the centre of the deliberative process. However, little is known about how the jury process works in a health‐care context. There is even less clarity about how consumer perspectives are heard within citizens’ juries and with what consequences. Objectives: This paper focuses on what is known about the role of consumer voices within health‐care citizens’ juries, how these voices are heard by jurors and whether and in what ways the inclusion or exclusion of such voices may matter. Results: Consumer voices are not always included in health‐care citizens’ juries. There is a dearth of research on the conditions under which consumer voices emerge (or not), from which sources and why. As a result, little is known about what stories are voiced or silenced, and how such stories are heard by jurors, with what consequences for jurors, deliberation, decision‐makers, policy and practice. Discussion and Conclusion: The potential role of consumer voices in influencing deliberations and recommendations of citizens’ juries requires greater attention. Much needed knowledge about the nuances of deliberative processes will contribute to an assessment of the usefulness of citizens’ juries as a public engagement mechanism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses various reports published within the issue including one by Susan Sherwin and Meghan Winsby on autonomy in contemporary healthcare, one by Richard Ashcroft on financial incentives in health care and health promotion and one by Alan Cribb and Vikki Entwistle on shared decision making in medicine.

Current orthodoxy suggests that patients need to be provided with full information about their care and that treatment options should be discussed with patients and family members. This imperative is especially challenging when there is a lack of consensus about treatment effectiveness and equivocacy over different types of interventions. In the case of prostate cancer, evidence is contested as to the efficacy of different treatments. Thus, involving patients and their family members in treatment choices is complex and little is known about how patients and their partners process these decisions when there is uncertainty about different outcomes. This paper has reviewed the literature on the way couples approach such decision making in relation to treatment for prostate cancer. A meta-ethnographic synthesis of published qualitative papers that focused on the influences on patients', and their partners' treatment decision making for prostate cancer, was conducted in order to identify and understand barriers and facilitators which impact on this process. Our synthesis indicates that the couples' relationship 'dynamic' provides a contextual background against which treatment decisions are negotiated and made. We propose that the findings from this synthesis can enhance the potential for shared decision making for patients, and their partners, when facing a treatment decision for prostate cancer. By understanding the couples' relationship dynamic pre-diagnosis, clinicians may be able to tailor the communication and information provision to both patients and their partners, providing a personalized approach to treatment decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and public engagement in paediatric health‐care decision making is under‐researched, and there is a lack of systematically reviewed literature in this area. Objective: To examine the extent, range and nature of published research investigating the engagement of children/youth, families and the public in paediatric service improvement, to summarize key aspects of the research identified and to identify gaps to help inform future research needs. Methods: Literature was sought in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL. Eligible articles presented research focused on patient, family and public engagement strategies in the paediatric health‐care setting. Two reviewers extracted and charted data and analysed findings using a descriptive numerical summary analysis and a thematic analysis. Results: From 4331 articles, 21 were eligible. Most were from the United States. The majority of studies were undertaken in hospital settings and used quantitative methods. Various patient and public engagement strategies/interventions were examined, including shared decision‐making tools, questionnaires, youth councils/family advisory groups, patient portals and online networks. Most of the studies examined child/youth/parent satisfaction, with fewer investigating treatment outcomes or service improvement. The majority of studies investigated an engagement strategy at the 'individual treatment' level of engagement. Regarding the continuum of engagement, most of the studies were at either the 'consultation' or 'involvement' stage. Conclusion: Future research needs to focus on the investigation of engagement strategies delivered in primary care, and the use of more qualitative and mixed methods approaches is recommended. There is a gap in the area of engagement strategies directed towards 'service design and resources' and 'macro/policy' levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Showing how engagement adds value for all stakeholders can be an effective motivator for broader implementation of patient engagement. However, it is unclear what methods can best be used to evaluate patient engagement. This paper is focused on ways to evaluate patient engagement at three decision‐making points in the medicines research and development process: research priority setting, clinical trial design and early dialogues with regulators and health technology assessment bodies. Objective: Our aim was to review the literature on monitoring and evaluation of patient engagement, with a focus on indicators and methods. Search strategy and inclusion criteria: We undertook a scoping literature review using a systematic search, including academic and grey literature with a focus on evaluation approaches or outcomes associated with patient engagement. No date limits were applied other than a cut‐off of publications after July 2018. Data extraction and synthesis: Data were extracted from 91 publications, coded and thematically analysed. Main results: A total of 18 benefits and 5 costs of patient engagement were identified, mapped with 28 possible indicators for their evaluation. Several quantitative and qualitative methods were found for the evaluation of benefits and costs of patient engagement. Discussion and conclusions: Currently available indicators and methods are of some use in measuring impact but are not sufficient to understand the pathway to impact, nor whether interaction between researchers and patients leads to change. We suggest that the impacts of patient engagement can best be determined not by applying single indicators, but a coherent set of measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Editorial. Highlights the topics discussed at the International Conference on Treatment Decision-Making in the Clinical Encounter held in Hamilton, Ontario. Type and amount of involvement that patients want in treatment decision-making; Different physician communication styles; Different approaches to treatment decision-making; Roles of patients and physicians in treatment decision-making.

Background and Aims: Communication is important in determining how patients understand the diagnostic process. Empirical studies involving direct observation of communication within diagnostic processes are relatively limited. This ethnographic study aimed to identify communicative practices facilitating or inhibiting shared understanding between patients and doctors in UK acute secondary care settings. Methods: Data were collected in acute medical sectors of three English hospitals. Researchers observed doctors as they assessed patients; semistructured interviews were undertaken with doctors and patients directly afterwards. Patients were also interviewed 2–4 weeks later. Case studies of individual encounters (consisting of these interviews and observational notes) were created, and were cross‐examined by an interdisciplinary team to identify divergence and convergence between doctors' and patients' narratives. These data were analysed thematically. Results: We conducted 228 h of observation, 24 doctor interviews, 32 patient interviews and 15 patient follow‐up interviews. Doctors varied in their communication. Patient diagnostic understanding was sometimes misaligned with that of their doctors; interviews revealed that they often made incorrect assumptions to make sense of the fragmented information received. Thematic analysis identified communicative practices that seemed to facilitate, or inhibit, shared diagnostic understanding between patient and doctor, revealing three themes: (1) communicating what has been understood from the medical record, (2) sharing the thought process and diagnostic reasoning and (3) closing the loop and discharge communication. Shared understanding was best fostered by clear communication about the diagnostic process, what had already been done and what was achievable in acute settings. Written information presents an underutilised tool in such communication. Conclusions: In UK acute secondary settings, the provision of more information about the diagnostic process often fostered shared understanding between doctor and patient, helping to minimise the confusion and dissatisfaction that can result from misaligned expectations or conclusions about the diagnosis, and the uncertainty therein. Patient/Public Contribution: A patient and public involvement group (of a range of ages and backgrounds) was consulted. They contributed to the design of the protocol, including the timing of interviews, the acceptability of a follow‐up telephone interview, the development of the interview guides and the participant information sheets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In an increasingly digital age, students rely heavily on web resources to access health information. However, evaluating the reliability and relevance of such information is crucial for informed decision‐making. This study examines the importance of students' health information literacy skills (HILS) as mediators, particularly their ability to utilize web resources and successfully evaluate health information. Objectives: This research investigates the mediating role of students' HILS in the relationship between their utilization of web resources and their proficiency in evaluating health information. Method: An online survey was distributed to current students at a public university in Bangladesh as part of the data collection process for this study. Using Google Forms, the authors created a structured questionnaire. The survey was distributed through Messenger groups, Facebook pages and email invitations to reach the target audience effectively. The researchers thoroughly analysed the gathered data using structural equation modelling (SEM) techniques and SmartPLS‐4 software to look for correlations between the variables. Result: The study revealed that among the 122 participants, a significant number (N = 47) accessed internet health information on an occasional basis, whereas 30 individuals reported using it infrequently. The data revealed that 58 individuals, accounting for 47.5% of the sample, possessed the necessary abilities to access and assess online health information. Additionally, 57 participants, representing 46.7% of the sample, demonstrated proficiency in conducting online health information searches. The measurement model demonstrated good convergent validity, as evidenced by composite reliability (CR) scores and Cronbach's ⍺ values over 0.700 and an average extracted variance (AVE) of 0.500. The structural model demonstrated R2 values exceeding 0.1, thus validating its dependable forecasting capability. Notable effects were seen, with f2 values of 0.335 and 0.317 for the challenges in accessing and evaluating health information (CAEHI) to health information evaluation (HIE) and CAEHI to HILS relationships, respectively. The mediation analysis found that HILS act as a mediator between types of web resources (TWRs) and HIE, with TWR having an indirect impact on HIE through HILS. Discussion: The result supports all hypotheses. Therefore, it is evident that students' HILS mediate the relationship between utilization of web resources and their proficiency in evaluating health information. Conclusion: This study's findings could significantly impact instructional practices meant to raise students' health information literacy. This initiative seeks to enable students to make informed decisions about their health by providing them with the necessary tools to analyse and evaluate health‐related information. Patient or Public Contribution: Research on health information literacy can assist patients and the general public by instructing them on how to assess trustworthy online health resources. Students gave insightful feedback that assisted in shaping the study and guaranteeing its relevancy. If they better comprehend health information literacy, patients and the general public can use web‐based resources and critically evaluate health information more accurately. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We present a relationship‐centred shared‐decision‐making (RCSDM) process model to explicate factors that shape decision‐making processes during physical medicine and rehabilitation (PMR) encounters among patients, their care partners and practitioners. Existing shared decision‐making (SDM) models fall short in addressing the everyday decisions routinely made regarding persons with chronic disabilities who require high levels of support, their care partners and rehabilitation practitioners. In PMR, these everyday decisions are small scale, immediate and in service to a larger therapeutic goal. They can be thought of as micro‐decisions and involve multiple practitioners, care partners and patients. How micro‐decisions are made in this context is contingent on multiple roles and relationships among these relevant parties. Our model centres on micro‐decisions among patients, their care partners and practitioners based on our disorders of consciousness (DoC) research. Methods: To develop our model, we examined peer‐reviewed literature in SDM in PMR, chronic disability and person‐centeredness; formed collaborations and co‐created our constructs with rehabilitation practitioners and with care partners who have lived experience of caring for persons with DoC; analysed emerging empirical data and vetted early versions with expert scientific and clinical audiences. Our model builds from the core tenets of relational autonomy, and scholarship and activism of disability advocates. Findings: Our model conceptualizes four non‐hierarchical levels of analysis to understand the process of micro‐decision‐making in chronic disability and medical rehabilitation: social forces (historical and sociological); roles and relationships (multiple and intersecting); relational dimensions (interactional and contextual) and micro‐decision moments (initiation, response and closure). Discussion: Relationships among patients, their care partners and practitioners are the intersubjective milieu within which decisions are made. Our conceptual model explicates the process of micro‐decision‐making in PMR. Patient or Public Contribution: Care partners (or caregivers) and rehabilitation practitioners are active members of our team. We work together to develop research projects, collect, analyse and disseminate data. The conceptual model we present in this manuscript was co‐created—input from care partners and practitioners on previously collected data became the impetus to develop the RCSDM process model and share co‐authorship in this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Risk stratification has been suggested as a strategy for improving cancer screening. Any changes to existing programmes must be acceptable to the public. Objective: This study aimed to explore the preferences and considerations of individuals relating to the introduction of different risk‐based strategies to determine eligibility for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Study Design: Participants completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) within online interviews. Nine conjoint‐analysis tasks were created, each with two potential CRC screening programmes. The attributes included personal risk of CRC, screening invitation strategy and impact. Participants chose between programmes while thinking aloud and sharing their thoughts. Transcripts were analysed using codebook thematic analysis. Participants: Twenty participants based in England aged 40–79 years without previous cancer history or medical expertise. Results: When choosing between programmes, participants first and primarily looked to prioritise saving lives. The harms associated with screening were viewed as a surprise but also felt by most to be inevitable; the benefits frequently outweighed, therefore, harms were considered less important. Risk stratification using individual characteristics was considered a nuanced approach to healthcare, which tended to be preferred over the age‐alone model. Detailed personal risk information could be taken more seriously than non‐personalised information to motivate behaviour change. Although it had minimal impact on decision‐making, not diverting resources for screening from elsewhere was valued. Individuals who chose not to provide health information were considered irresponsible, while it was important that those with no information to provide should not lose out. Conclusion: Risk‐stratified CRC screening is generally aligned with public preferences, with decisions between possible stratification strategies dominated by saving lives. Even if attributes including risk factors, risk stratification strategy and risk communication contributed less to the overall decision to select certain programmes, some levels more clearly fulfilled public values; therefore, all these factors should be taken into consideration when redesigning and communicating CRC screening programmes. Patient or Public Contribution: The primary data source for this study is interviews with 20 members of the public (current, past or future CRC screening invitees). Two public representatives contributed to planning this study, particularly the DCE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Individuals with high risk for lung cancer may benefit from lung cancer screening, but there are associated risks as well as benefits. Shared decision‐making (SDM) tools with personalized information may provide key support for patients. Understanding patient perspectives on educational tools to facilitate SDM for lung cancer screening may support tool development. Aim: This study aimed to explore patient perspectives related to a SDM tool for lung cancer screening using a qualitative approach. Methods: We elicited patient perspectives by showing a provider‐facing SDM tool. Focus group interviews that ranged in duration from 1.5 to 2 h were conducted with 23 individuals with high risk for lung cancer. Data were interpreted inductively using thematic analysis to identify patients' thoughts on and desires for a patient‐facing SDM tool. Results: The findings highlight that patients would like to have educational information related to lung cancer screening. We identified several key themes to be considered in the future development of patient‐facing tools: barriers to acceptance, preference against screening and seeking empowerment. One further theme illustrated effects of patient–provider relationship as a limitation to meeting lung cancer screening information needs. Participants also noted several suggestions for the design of technology decision aids. Conclusion: These findings suggest that patients desire additional information on lung cancer screening in advance of clinical visits. However, there are several issues that must be considered in the design and development of technology to meet the information needs of patients for lung cancer screening decisions. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients, service users, caregivers or members of the public were not involved in the study design, conduct, analysis or interpretation of the data. However, clinical experts in health communication provided detailed feedback on the study protocol, including the focus group approach. The study findings contribute to a better understanding of patient expectations for lung cancer screening decisions and may inform future development of tools for SDM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Co‐design in health research involves patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in intervention or service design. Traditionally, co‐design is undertaken in‐person; however, exploring online delivery is warranted. PPIE in co‐design must be considered carefully, and assumptions that in‐person approaches will transition automatically to an online environment should be avoided. Currently, there are a lack of evidence‐informed approaches to facilitating co‐design online. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a framework for authentically adapting health research co‐design into an online environment. Materials and Methods: The initial framework was developed through a literature review, synthesis of in‐person co‐design principles, and alignment of online strategies. The framework was then applied to a co‐design project with 10 participants across relevant PPIE groups (end‐users [n = 4], clinicians [n = 2], coaches [n = 2] and clinician−researchers [n = 2]). Participants' experiences of the online co‐design process were evaluated via a mixed‐methods design using surveys and semi‐structured interviews. Evaluation data were analysed using descriptive statistics and reflexive thematic analysis to inform a revised framework. Results: The developed framework, Partnership‐focussed Principles‐driven Online co‐Design (P‐POD) was used to design eight 90 min online co‐design workshops. Evaluation data involved 46 survey responses, and eight participants were interviewed on project completion. Survey data indicated that the process was satisfying, engaging and adhered to the P‐POD framework. Themes derived from interview data describe a respectful and collaborative online culture, valuing of diverse perspectives and space for healthy debate, how power was perceived as being shared but not equal and multiple definitions of success within and beyond the process. A final, refined P‐POD framework is presented. Conclusion: With evaluation of the initial P‐POD framework showing evidence of adherence to co‐design principles, positive participant experiences and goal achievement for both the project and the participants, the refined P‐POD framework may be used and evaluated within future intervention or service design. Patient or Public Contribution: This study involved the participants (end‐users, clinicians and service providers) in the co‐design process described, interpretation of the results through member‐checking interview responses, assisting in development of the final framework and as co‐authors for this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Indigenous women experience high rates of family violence‐related head injuries. At present, lived experience accounts from Indigenous women are absent, which results in incomplete understandings and inadequate responses that have detrimental impacts on them and their families. The aim of this study was to gain insight into Indigenous women's personal and family perspectives regarding violence‐related traumatic brain injury (TBI), including impacts on life, as well as decision‐making processes about healthcare access and engagement. Methods: Purposeful sampling was used to complete semi‐structured interviews with 18 Indigenous women living in regional and remote Australia who had experienced TBI from family violence. The data from these interviews were augmented by data from interviews and focus groups with 28 community members, including family members or carers of Indigenous women living with TBI from family violence. Results: Three themes were conceptualised based on the data and research aims: interweaving of the past and the present—ways women experience brain injury; factors that inform decision‐making to access healthcare; and managing everyday changes that result from TBI from family violence. Indigenous women described living with a range of symptoms following repeated head injuries including problems with memory, cognition and concentration. A range of strategies to manage long‐term symptoms of TBI were used by Indigenous women and when they did seek healthcare, Indigenous women were required to navigate a range of barriers. Conclusions: The findings identify a range of gaps in healthcare and housing supports for Indigenous women with TBI from violence, highlighting the significant investment needed to develop responsive and appropriate pathways of care in regional and remote areas. A range of suggestions are discussed including development of a specialised workforce who can provide apppropriate follow‐up support, co‐designed concussion clinics and educational resources. TBI must also be a key aspect of policy and practice for services working with Indigenous women who have experienced violence to ensure appropriate responses are provided. Public or Patient Contribution: Indigenous women shared their views and experiences of TBI from family violence as well as decision‐making about accessing healthcare and managing TBI symptoms. As such, study participants provided public contributions to the research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & objectives: The comparative uses of different types of patient experience (PE) feedback as data within quality improvement (QI) are poorly understood. This paper reviews what types are currently available and categorizes them by their characteristics in order to better understand their roles in QI. Methods: A scoping review of types of feedback currently available to hospital staff in the UK was undertaken. This comprised academic database searches for "measures of PE outcomes" (2000‐2016), and grey literature and websites for all types of "PE feedback" potentially available (2005‐2016). Through an iterative consensus process, we developed a list of characteristics and used this to present categories of similar types. Main results: The scoping review returned 37 feedback types. A list of 12 characteristics was developed and applied, enabling identification of 4 categories that help understand potential use within QI—(1) Hospital‐initiated (validated) quantitative surveys: for example the NHS Adult Inpatient Survey; (2) Patient‐initiated qualitative feedback: for example complaints or twitter comments; (3) Hospital‐initiated qualitative feedback: for example Experience Based Co‐Design; (4) Other: for example Friends & Family Test. Of those routinely collected, few elicit "ready‐to‐use" data and those that do elicit data most suitable for measuring accountability, not for informing ward‐based improvement. Guidance does exist for linking collection of feedback to QI for some feedback types in Category 3 but these types  are not routinely used. Conclusion: If feedback is to be used more frequently within QI, more attention must be paid to obtaining and making available the most appropriate types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient‐directed knowledge tools such as patient versions of guidelines and patient decision aids are increasingly developed to facilitate shared decision making. In this paper, we report how consensus was reached within the Netherlands on quality criteria for development, content and governance of these tools. Method: A 12‐month development and consensus study. The consortium worked on four work packages: (a) reviewing existing criteria; (b) drafting the quality criteria; (c) safe‐guarding the acceptability and feasibility of the draft criteria by participatory research in on‐going tool development projects; and (d) gaining formal support from national stakeholders on the quality criteria. Results: We reached consensus on a 8‐step guidance; describing minimal quality criteria for (a) the team composition; (b) setting the scope; (c) identifying needs; (d) the content and format; (e) testing the draft; (f) finalizing and approval; (g) dissemination and application, and (h) ownership and revision. The participants of the on‐going tool development projects were positive about the quality criteria in general, but divided as to the degree of detail. Whereas some expressed a clear desire for procedural standards, others felt that it would be sufficient to provide only general directions. Despite the different views as to the degree of detail, consensus was reached in three stakeholder meetings. Discussion: We successfully collaborated with all stakeholders and achieved formal support from national stakeholders on a set of minimum criteria for the development process, content and governance of patient‐directed knowledge tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context Promoting patient participation in treatment decision making is of increasing interest to researchers, clinicians and policy makers. Decision aids (DAs) are advocated as one way to help achieve this goal. Despite their proliferation, there has been little agreement on criteria or standards for evaluating these tools. To fill this gap, an international collaboration of researchers and others interested in the development, content and quality of DAs have worked over the past several years to develop a checklist and, based on this checklist, an instrument for determining whether any given DA meets a defined set of quality criteria. Objective/Methods In this paper, we offer a framework for assessing the conceptual clarity and evidence base used to support the development of quality criteria/standards for evaluating DAs. We then apply this framework to assess the conceptual clarity and evidence base underlying the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) checklist criteria for one of the checklist domains: how best to present in DAs probability information to patients on treatment benefits and risks. Conclusion We found that some of the central concepts underlying the presenting probabilities domain were not defined. We also found gaps in the empirical evidence and theoretical support for this domain and criteria within this domain. Finally, we offer suggestions for steps that should be undertaken for further development and refinement of quality standards for DAs in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: BRCA1/2 mutation carriers’ choice between risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy (RRSO) and salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy is very complex. Aim was to develop a patient decision aid that combines evidence with patient preferences to facilitate decision making. Design: Systematic development of a patient decision aid in an iterative process of prototype development, alpha testing by patients and clinicians and revisions using International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) quality criteria. Information was based on the available literature and current guidelines. A multidisciplinary steering group supervised the process. Setting and participants: Pre‐menopausal BRCA1/2 mutation carriers choosing between RRSO and salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy in Family Cancer Clinics in the Netherlands. Main outcome measures: IPDAS quality criteria, relevance, usability, clarity. Results: The patient decision aid underwent four rounds of alpha testing and revisions. Finally, two paper decision aids were developed: one for BRCA1 and one for BRCA2. They both contained a general introduction, three chapters and a step‐by‐step plan containing a personal value clarification worksheet. During alpha testing, risk communication and information about premature menopause and hormone therapy were the most revised items. The patient decision aids fulfil 37 of 43 (86%) IPDAS criteria for content and development process. Discussion and conclusions: Both BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and professionals are willing to use or offer the developed patient decision aids for risk‐reducing surgery. The patient decision aids have been found clear, balanced and comprehensible. Future testing among patients facing the decision should point out its effectiveness in improving decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To explore the experiences, acceptability and utility of a decision aid for family carers of people with dementia towards the end of life. Methods: We conducted semi‐structured interviews with a sample of family carers enroled into a 6‐month feasibility study in England, sampling to gain a range of experiences and views, based on relationship to person they cared for (e.g., spouse, adult child), age, gender, and self‐reported use of the decision aid during the feasibility study. Interviews were conducted in March 2021–July 2021 and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. We used COREQ checklist to report our methods and results. Results: Family carers found the decision aid acceptable, describing it as comprehensive, accessible with relevant information and its presentation enabled good engagement. Experiences of the decision aid covered four main themes which demonstrated the perceived acceptability and utility: 1. A source of support and reassurance; 2. Empowering conversations and confidence; 3. Including the person living with dementia; and 4. Breaking down complexity. Conclusions: An aid focussing on decisions about dementia end of life care supported family carers break down complex and emotive decisions, not only with making decisions in the moment but also in future planning. Patient or Public Contribution: Our three Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) members (all former family carers) were crucial throughout the wider study. PPI supported development of the topic guides, supported trialling the topic guide and interview procedures and finally supported the development of themes as part of the analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Globally, there is an increasing demand for quality medical rehabilitation services. This is the first article of a two‐part series showing the findings from the Rehabilitation Choices study in which the main aim was to understand the current landscape of decision‐making, enablers and barriers to access appropriate rehabilitation services in the Australian setting. In Part 1, these insights were sought from a healthcare professionals' perspective. Methods: This was an exploratory, qualitative study, using semi‐structured interviews with a discussion guide that was codesigned together with rehabilitation clinicians and rehabilitation researchers. Themes and sub‐themes were identified using an inductive approach. Results: We interviewed a heterogeneous group of 31 professionals who are involved in making referral decisions about rehabilitation or who design and deliver rehabilitation programs, including specialist rehabilitation physicians and other medical doctors across in‐patient, outpatient, and primary care settings, allied health professionals, rehabilitation service managers, nurses, multicultural health liaison officers and rehabilitation research scientists. Three key themes relevant to barriers and enablers to service access were identified from the data: defining rehabilitation; a lack of timely access to patient and rehabilitation service data; and patient diversity not expected by the system. Conclusions: Healthcare professionals who make decisions about rehabilitation referrals and services feel that it was necessary for them to keep up to date with information relating to rehabilitation services. There was some concern regarding what rehabilitation constituted and what services were available for different clinical indications. They also indicated that current systems did not consider diversity among patients' needs and goals. Their recommendations included the need for better communication pathways, improved referral systems and resources that could help provide best practice of rehabilitative care in the future. Patient or Public Contribution: Three study team members had a lived experience of rehabilitation as a patient or carer, and previous experience participating in qualitative research. They worked with the study team to codesign the recruitment strategy, participant‐facing communications, the interview discussion guide, and the approach to the conduct of activities with participants and in the interpretation and contextualization of findings and all were involved in writing this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: People being investigated for cancer face a wealth of complex information. Non‐specific symptom pathways (NSS) were implemented in the United Kingdom in 2017 to address the needs of patients experiencing symptoms such as weight loss, fatigue or general practitioner 'gut feeling', who did not have streamlined pathways for cancer investigation. This study aimed to explore the health literacy skills needed by patients being investigated for cancer in NSS pathways. Methods: This study employed ethnographic methods across four hospitals in England, including interviews, patient shadowing and clinical care observations, to examine NSS pathways for cancer diagnosis. We recruited 27 patients who were shadowed and interviewed during their care. We also interviewed 27 professionals. The analysis focused on patient communication and understanding, drawing on the concepts of personal and organisational health literacy. Results: Our analysis derived six themes highlighting the considerable informational demands of the NSS pathway. Patients were required to understand complex blood tests and investigations in primary care and often did not understand why they were referred. The NSS pathway itself was difficult to understand with only a minority of patients appreciating that multiple organs were being investigated for cancer. The process of progressing through the pathway was also difficult to understand, particularly around who was making decisions and what would happen next. The results of investigations were complex, often including incidental findings. Patients whose persistent symptoms were not explained were often unsure of what to do following discharge. Conclusion: We have identified several potential missed opportunities for organisations to support patient understanding of NSS pathways which could lead to inappropriate help‐seeking post‐discharge. Patients' difficulties in comprehending previous investigations and findings could result in delays, overtesting or inadequately targeted investigations, hindering the effective use of their medical history. Third, patients' limited understanding of their investigations and results may impede their ability to engage in patient safety by reporting potential care errors. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient, public, clinical and policy representatives contributed to developing the research objectives through a series of meetings and individual conversations in preparation for the study. We have held several events in which patients and the public have had an opportunity to give feedback about our results, such as local interest groups in North London and academic conferences. A clinical contributor (J.‐A. M.) was involved in data analysis and writing the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthcare and support workers play a pivotal role in delivering quality services and support to people seeking sanctuary who have experienced poor physical and mental health linked to previous trauma, relocation and loss of freedoms. However, they often encounter various challenges in their daily work, ranging from communication barriers to resource constraints. This qualitative study seeks to delve into the perspectives of healthcare and support workers' experience of workarounds, employed to overcome barriers to providing care. Aim: This study aims to describe healthcare providers', practitioners' and health and third sector support workers' views on barriers and workarounds to providing care for people seeking sanctuary, to inform policy and practice. Design: A qualitative study was carried out using semi‐structured telephone interviews. Setting: This study focused on primary, secondary, community and specialist National Health Service (NHS) support services for people seeking sanctuary in Wales, United Kingdom (2018). Method: We interviewed 32 healthcare providers, practitioners and support workers employed by primary care and third sector organisations. Our approach involved obtaining verbal informed consent before digitally recording and transcribing all interviews. To analyse the data, we used the Four Levels of Change for Improving Quality model as a guiding framework for interpretation. Results: Our study findings reveal that certain respondents expressed challenges in meeting the needs of people seeking sanctuary; notably, their experience of delivering care differed by care settings. Specifically, those involved in providing specialist NHS care believed that there was room for improvement. Mainstream primary, secondary and community health practitioners faced limitations due to resource constraints and lacked tailored information to address the unique circumstances and needs of sanctuary seekers. To address these gaps, workarounds emerged at both individual and local levels (team/departmental and organisational level). These included establishing informal communication channels between providers, fostering cross service collaboration to fill gaps and adapting existing services to enhance accessibility. Conclusion: Understanding healthcare providers', practitioners' and support workers' perspectives offers invaluable insights into ways to enhance healthcare delivery to sanctuary seekers. Acknowledging challenges and harnessing innovative workarounds can foster a more effective and compassionate service for this vulnerable population. Patient or Public Contribution: The HEAR study actively involved public contributors in the design, delivery and dissemination of the research. Two public contributors (S. M. and G. R.) who had personal experience of seeking asylum served as study co‐applicants. They played pivotal roles in shaping the research by participating in its development and securing funding. Alongside other co‐applicants, S. M. and G. R. formed the Research Management Group, overseeing study delivery. Their contributions extended to strategic decision‐making and specific feedback at critical junctures, including participant recruitment, data collection, analysis and reporting. Additionally, S. M. and G. R. were instrumental in recruiting and supporting a team of peer researchers, enhancing respondent participation among people seeking sanctuary. To facilitate effective public involvement, we provided named contacts for support (A. K. and R. F.), research training, honoraria, reimbursement of expenses and accessible information in line with best practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To identify, describe and synthesise the views and experiences of adults living with asthma regarding shared decision‐making (SDM) in the existing qualitative literature Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of 10 databases (list databases) from inception until September 2023. Screening was performed according to inclusion criteria. Tools from the Joanna Briggs lnstitute were utilised for the purposes of data extraction and synthesis in this study. The data extraction process in this study employed the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM‐B model) as a framework, and a pragmatic meta‐aggregative approach was employed to synthesise the collected results. Results: Nineteen studies were included in the metasynthesis. Three synthesised themes were identified: the capability of people living with asthma, the opportunities of people living with asthma in SDM, and the motivation of the people living with asthma in SDM. Conclusions: We have identified specific factors influencing people living with asthma engaging in SDM. The findings of this study can serve as a basis for the implementation of SDM in people living with asthma and provide insights for the development of their SDM training programs. The ConQual score for the synthesised findings was rated as low. To enhance confidence, future studies should address dependability and credibility factors. Practice Implications: This review contemplates the implementation of SDM from the perspective of people living with asthma, with the aim of providing patient‐centred services for them. The results of this review can benefit the implementation of SDM and facilitate information sharing. It offers guidance for SDM skills training among adults living with asthma, fosters a better doctor–patient relationship and facilitates consensus in treatment decisions, thereby enabling personalised and tailored medical care. Patient or Public Contribution: Three nursing graduate students participated in the data extraction and integration process, with two students having extensive clinical experience that provided valuable insights for the integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The involvement of people with lived experience (LEX) workers in the development, design, and delivery of integrated health services seeks to improve service user engagement and health outcomes and reduce healthcare gaps. Yet, LEX workers report feeling undervalued and having limited influence on service delivery. There is a need for systematic improvements in how LEX workforces are engaged and supported to ensure the LEX workforce can fully contribute to integrated systems of care. Objective: This study aimed to operationalize the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) using a rigorous scoping review methodology and co‐creation process, so it could be used by health services seeking to build and strengthen their LEX workforce. Search Strategy: A systematic literature search of four databases was undertaken to identify peer‐reviewed studies published between 2016 and 2022 providing evidence of the inclusion of LEX workers in direct health service provision. Data Extraction and Synthesis: A descriptive‐analytical method was used to map current evidence of LEX workers onto the CFIR. Then, co‐creation sessions with LEX workers (n = 4) and their counterparts—nonpeer workers (n = 2)—further clarified the structural policies and strategies that allow people with LEX to actively participate in the provision and enhancement of integrated health service delivery. Main Results: Essential components underpinning the successful integration of LEX roles included: the capacity to engage in a co‐creation process with individuals with LEX before the implementation of the role or intervention; and enhanced representation of LEX across organizational structures. Discussion and Conclusion: The adapted CFIR for LEX workers (CFIR‐LEX) that was developed as a result of this work clarifies contextual components that support the successful integration of LEX roles into the development, design, and delivery of integrated health services. Further work must be done to operationalize the framework in a local context and to better understand the ongoing application of the framework in a health setting. Patient or Public Contribution: People with LEX were involved in the operationalization of the CFIR, including contributing their expertise to the domain adaptations that were relevant to the LEX workforce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]