Search

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a critical priority in research, policy, academia and advocacy organizations. PPI in dementia research is gaining momentum. However, these efforts are missing in international projects aimed at those living with advanced dementia in long‐term care (LTC) homes. Additional complexities can arise in enacting PPI within the context of integration of a palliative approach to care and experiences around end‐of‐life in (EOL) dementia. The mySupport study involved implementing the Family Carer Decision Support (FCDS) intervention for care partners of those living with advanced dementia in LTC in six countries. Research Design and Objective: An interpretive description study was conducted to explore the perspectives of international researchers from six countries on engaging people with lived experiences of dementia and EOL care in research processes. The findings from this study informed the development of a PPI strategy and a subsequent toolkit for the FCDS intervention. Findings: Thirty‐eight interviews were completed with project researchers: 12 from the United Kingdom, 8 from Canada, 7 from Ireland, 4 each from Italy and The Netherlands and 3 from the Czech Republic. Four broad themes describe international researchers' perspectives on advancing methods of engagement for people with lived experiences of dementia and EOL in international PPI activities: (1) Groundwork to engage in research; (2) planning for research activities is key; (3) focus on meaningful engagement and (4) having foresight for practical issues shaping PPI. Discussion and Implications: International projects that involve PPI can present many sources of challenges. The findings in this study highlight important considerations for foundational work for incorporating PPI in international projects. Learning from world leaders and those with lived experiences in various regions can be insightful and help share tools and resources. Patient or Public Contribution: PPI was envisioned as a critical part of conducting the mySupport study. The findings from this study informed the development of a PPI strategy and an international Strategic Guiding Council that included family carers of those living with advanced dementia in LTC homes in six countries. This manuscript focused on the perspectives of researchers on their engagement with people with lived experiences of dementia and EOL. The perspectives of persons with lived experiences on engaging in the mySupport research study will be reported in a forthcoming manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective This paper examines how negative experiences with the health-care system create a lack of confidence in receiving medical care in seven countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Methods The empirical analysis is based on data from the Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey 2007, with nationally representative samples of adults aged 18 and over. For the analysis of the experience of cost barriers and confidence in receiving medical care, we conducted pairwise comparisons of group percentages as well as country-wise multivariate logistic regression models. Results Individuals who have experienced cost barriers show a significantly lower level of confidence in receiving safe and quality medical care than those who have not. This effect is most pronounced in the United States, where people who have foregone necessary treatment because of costs are four times as likely to lack confidence as individuals without the experience of cost barriers (adjusted odds ratio 4.00). In New Zealand, Germany, and Canada, individuals with the experience of cost barriers are twice as likely to report low confidence compared with those without this experience (adjusted odds ratios of 1.95, 2.19 and 2.24, respectively). In the Netherlands and UK, cost barriers are only a marginal phenomenon. Conclusions The fact that the experience of financial barriers considerably lowers confidence indicates that financial incentives, such as private co-payments, have a negative effect on overall public support and therefore on the legitimacy of health-care systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Measuring patients’ experiences to determine health ‐ care performance and quality of care from their perspective can provide valuable evidence for international improvements in the quality of care. We compare patients’ experiences in Accident & Emergency departments (A&E) in England and the Netherlands and discuss the usefulness of this comparison. Methods: A cross ‐ sectional survey was conducted among patients attending A&Es aged 18 years and older. In England, 134 A&Es were surveyed. In the Netherlands, nine hospitals participated in the study. Main outcome measures were patients’ experiences represented by six domain scores aggregated on the country level or on the A&E level. Results: In England, 43 892 completed questionnaires were received (40%). In the Netherlands, 1865 completed questionnaires were received (42%). Three of six domain scores were significantly higher for patients in the Netherlands: ‘waiting time’ [mean scores of 73.8 (NL) versus 67.2 (ENG)], ‘doctors and nurses’ [mean scores of 85.7 (NL) versus 80.6 (ENG)] and ‘your care and treatment’ [mean scores of 82.6 (NL) and 80.2 (ENG)]. The variance among the English A&Es was large. The best and worst practices on five domains were English. Conclusions: The mean quality of care in the A&E appeared to be better in the Netherlands on three domains, but the best practices were English A&Es. The within ‐ country differences between A&Es were much larger than differences between countries. Healthcare performance in the A&E can be compared between countries by surveying patients’ experiences, and there seems much to learn across A&Es both within and among countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which aims to listen to peoples' perspectives on what constitutes a good physician communication. The researchers detail the study design using videotaped standardized medical encounters to discuss their preferences in gender-specific focus groups. It implies that the physicians' affective attitude is most desired and appreciated by patients.