Search

Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Background: Involving patients and citizens in health care decision-making is considered increasingly important in Germany. Participatory structures have been implemented, especially in rehabilitative care. However, it is unknown whether and to what extent German patients and citizens want to participate in decisions that exceed their own medical treatment., Objective: This study aimed to survey participation preferences and associated factors of health service users in decisions regarding rehabilitative care at micro, meso and macro levels., Methods: A questionnaire was sent to 3872 former rehabilitants. We collected participation preferences using the Control Preference Scale or an adapted form. Possible influencing factors were examined using logistic regression models., Results: The response rate was 5.7% (n = 217). At all decision-making levels, joint decision-making was preferred. At the macro level, preferences for actively participating were the highest. Preferences were significantly interrelated between decision-making levels. At the micro level, an orthopaedic indication significantly decreased the desire for participation compared to psychosomatic indications (odds ratio = 0.44, p = .019)., Discussion: Participants wanted to be equally involved in decision-making as experts. Higher preferences for active participation at the macro level might be due to dissatisfaction with the current health care organisation and lack of trust in politicians. Compared to the general public, our study sample was older (73.3% between 50 and 69 years) and more often chronically ill-factors associated with increased participation preferences in the literature., Conclusion: Contrary to the identified preferences, participation opportunities in the German health care system are rare. Further research on participation preferences and structures that enable meaningful involvement are needed., (© 2021 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Public and patient involvement (PPI) in healthcare decisions at the health system-level (macro-level) has become increasingly important during recent years. Existing evidence indicates that PPI increase patient centredness and the democracy of healthcare decisions as well as patients' trust and acceptance of these decisions. However, different methods for PPI exist, and an overview of the outcomes and influential contextual factors has not yet been conducted. Therefore, this scoping review aims to provide an overview of the different methods used for PPI in health system decisionmaking and the reported outcomes and contextual factors for these methods., Methods and Analysis: The structure of this protocol is guided by the advanced scoping studies framework of Arksey and O' Malley, developed by Levac, Colquhoun and O'Brien, and the PRISMA-ScR Statement. We will systematically search electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL, PDQ-Evidence, Web of Science and PsycINFO) for peer-reviewed literature and screen the reference lists of included studies. Additionally, we will search for relevant grey literature and consult experts from the field to identify further information. Studies focusing on PPI in the context of health policy decision-making at the macro-level will be eligible for full-text screening. Studies focusing on decisions at the individual treatment-level (micro-level) and the organisational-level (mesolevel) as well as those dealing with PPI in health research will be excluded. A qualitative analysis will dissect how the included studies define PPI and its desirable outcomes, the achieved outcomes and reported contextual factors., Ethics and Dissemination: We will present the results at relevant conferences and in an open-access journal. Additionally, we will share them with the experts involved in the research process and consider ways in which to transfer the findings into practice. As only secondary and previously published information will be used, ethical approval is not necessary., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly required in mental health services research. To empower patients to actively address depression, the GET.FEEDBACK.GP study evaluates a patient-targeted feedback intervention after depression screening using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9)., Objective: To refine the patient-targeted feedback from a previous study within a participatory research team (PRT) by conducting workshops to investigate patients' needs and preferences for feedback. To evaluate the process and outcome of PPI., Design: Patient and public involvement was carried out on the levels of collaboration and consultation. A PRT of patient partners and researchers planned and conducted three workshops with patients. Patients' needs were investigated using a focus group. Participants prioritized needs, discussed feedback drafts and evaluated two drafts using cognitive debriefings. Researchers of the PRT communicated the results at project level. PPI was evaluated using the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tools (PPEET)., Setting and Participants: A purposeful sampling of N = 12 patients with experiences of depression participated in at least one workshop., Results: Relevant content-related needs about feedback (eg no distinction between severe and moderate symptoms), recommendations for action and patient-relevant information were considered. Needs for comprehensible, valuing, nonstigmatizing language and design elements (eg dimensional bar) were implemented. Workshops and PRT were positively evaluated., Discussion and Conclusions: Patient and public involvement influenced the content, wording and design of the feedback. Strengths include two levels of PPI, methodical diversity and purposeful sampling. Limitations include the lack of inclusion of patients who are unaware of their depression. The evaluated PPI concept can be useful for future studies., (© 2020 The Authors Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Patient involvement (PI) in research is increasingly required as a means to improve relevance and meaningfulness of research results. PI has been widely promoted by the National Institute for Health Research in England in the last years. In Germany, widespread involvement of patients in research is still missing. The methods used to realize PI have been developed mainly in English research contexts, and detailed information on how to involve patients in systematic reviews is rare. Therefore, the aim of the study was that patients contribute and prioritize clinically relevant outcomes to a systematic review on meta-cognitive interventions, and to evaluate a patient workshop as well as patients' perceptions of research involvement. Seven patients with experience in psychiatric care participated in our workshop. They focused on outcomes pre-defined in the review protocol (e.g., meta-cognitive or cognitive changes, symptomatology, quality of life), neglected other outcomes (like satisfaction with treatment, acceptability), and added relevant new ones (e.g., scope of action/autonomy, applicability). Altogether, they valued the explicit workshop participation positively. However, some suggested to involve patients at an earlier stage and to adapt the amount of information given. Further systematic reviews would benefit from the involvement of patients in the definition of other components of the review question (like patients or interventions), in the interpretation of key findings or in drafting a lay summary., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Objective Participation of mental health services users in research is increasingly acknowledged in Germany. Principles for successful involvement include research training for service users. The aims of the project were (1) to develop and (2) to evaluate a research training. Methods The research training was developed in five participatory meetings and piloted with 28 participants. They answered questions on the research training and about their interest in research, research-related empowerment and research participation. Results Interest in research did not change. But there is a difference between research-related empowerment before (t1) and after (t2) the research training ( z  = - 2.237; p  = 0.025). The number of participants registered in scientific studies increased from 4 (t1) to 8 three months later (t3) whereas the number of participants reporting own research ideas decreased from 7 (t1) to 5 (t3). Conclusion Although interest has not been affected, the evaluation shows significant effects on research-related empowerment in participants. Results concerning transfer are divergent. However, feedback was positive. We are planning to disseminate and refine the training., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)