Search

Introduction: Patient‐reported measures that assess satisfaction and experience are increasingly utilised in healthcare sectors, including the alcohol and other drug (AOD) sector. This scoping review identifies how and to what extent people accessing AOD services have been involved in the development of satisfaction and experience measures to date. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest, Google and Google Scholar were searched. Included papers described the development and/or implementation of a multiple‐item measure of patient‐reported experience or satisfaction specifically for people accessing AOD treatment and/or harm reduction programmes. If there was more than one paper, key papers were chosen that described each measure. The method of development, including service user involvement, was assessed against a framework generated for this review. Two reviewers were involved at each stage. Results: Thirty measures—23 satisfaction and 7 experience—were identified. Sixteen measures reported some level of involvement by people accessing AOD services in their development, although, for most measures, at a relatively low level. This involvement increased over the time span of the review becoming more frequent in later years. Only four measures were developed for use in harm reduction‐specific settings, and fewer than half reported undertaking analysis of underlying scale structure and constructs. Conclusion: Several gaps could be addressed to enhance the measurement of patient‐centred care in the AOD sector, including: developing experience measures for use in harm reduction settings and across various AOD settings in a service system; improved reporting of psychometric properties of these measures and increasing commitment to the meaningful involvement of AOD service users in measure development. Patient or Public Contribution: This scoping review is part of a broader codesign project that involves a partnership between the peak organisation for AOD services and the peer‐based AOD consumer organisation in the Australian Capital Territory, Australia. These organisations are working closely together to engage with AOD service users, service providers and policy makers in this codesign project. As such, the Executive Director of the peer‐based AOD consumer organisation is involved as a co‐author of this scoping review. [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]

Background: Quality improvement (QI) programs based on person‐centred outcome measures (PCOMs) play an important role in promoting optimal palliative care. However, routine use of PCOMs has been slow and difficult to implement, including within QI programs. Objective: This study aimed to identify implementation strategies that support the implementation of PCOMs as routine practice in hospital‐based palliative care, as well as the implementation theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) guiding the design of these implementation strategies. Methods: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Scoping Review framework. Four databases (Medline, CINAHL, Scopus and PubMed) were systematically searched for literature published between 1 January 1990 and 8 March 2024. Results: One hundred and fifteen unique implementation strategies, identified from 11 included studies, were mapped onto the 73 Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) discrete implementation strategies, covering 52% of the ERIC strategies. The most commonly used categories were train and educate stakeholders, and support clinicians, followed by develop stakeholder interrelationships and use evaluation and iterative strategies. Three key themes emerged: what to do; how to do it; and who to do it with. Only four studies employed TMFs to guide the design of the implementation strategies in this review. Conclusions: To promote the implementation of PCOM‐based QI programs, strategies should be developed based on identified/potential barriers and facilitators by using rigorous TMFs. The components of the implementation strategies must be reported transparently and consistently to enable replication and measurement in future research and practice. Patient and Public Contribution: This scoping review does not directly involve patients or the general public in its design or execution. However, it is part of an implementation study aimed at integrating the Palliative Care Outcome Collaboration (PCOC) model into routine clinical practice at a cancer hospital in China. Before the formal implementation, palliative care professionals from this hospital highlighted the need for a comprehensive analysis of existing evidence to support the effective adoption of the PCOC model in their specific clinical setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research aims to improve the quality, relevance and appropriateness of research. PPI has an established role in clinical research where there is evidence of benefit, and where policymakers and funders place continued emphasis on its inclusion. However, for preclinical research, PPI has not yet achieved the same level of integration. As more researchers, including our team, aim to include PPI in preclinical research, the development of an evidence‐based approach is important. Therefore, this scoping review aimed to identify and map studies where PPI has been used in preclinical research and develop principles that can be applied in other projects. Methods: A scoping review was conducted to search the literature in Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Web of Science Core Collection to identify applied examples of preclinical PPI. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection and data extraction separately. Data were extracted relating to PPI in terms of (i) rationale and aims, (ii) approach used, (iii) benefits and challenges, (iv) impact and evaluation and (v) learning opportunities for preclinical PPI. Findings were reviewed collaboratively by PPI contributors and the research team to identify principles that could be applied to other projects. Results: Nine studies were included in the final review with the majority of included studies reporting PPI to improve the relevance of their research, using approaches such as PPI advisory panels and workshops. Researchers report several benefits and challenges, although evidence of formal evaluation is limited. Conclusion: Although currently there are few examples of preclinical research studies reporting empirical PPI activity, their findings may support those aiming to use PPI in preclinical research. Through collaborative analysis of the scoping review findings, several principles were developed that may be useful for other preclinical researchers. Patient or Public Contribution: This study was conducted as part of a broader project aiming to develop an evidence base for preclinical PPI that draws on a 5‐year preclinical research programme focused on the development of advanced biomaterials for spinal cord repair as a case study. A PPI Advisory Panel comprising seriously injured rugby players, clinicians, preclinical researchers and PPI facilitators collaborated as co‐authors on the conceptualization, execution and writing of this review, including refining the findings into the set of principles reported here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]