Search

Background: Scaling in health and social services (HSS) aims to increase the intended impact of proven effective interventions. Patient and public involvement (PPI) is critical for ensuring that scaling beneficiaries' interests are served. We aimed to identify PPI strategies and their characteristics in the science and practice of scaling in HSS. Methods: In this scoping review, we included any scaling initiative in HSS that used PPI strategies and reported PPI methods and outcomes. We searched electronic databases (e.g., Medline) from inception to 5 February 2024, and grey literature (e.g., Google). Paired reviewers independently selected and extracted eligible reports. A narrative synthesis was performed and we used the PRISMA for Scoping Reviews and the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2). Findings: We included 110 unique reports out of 24,579 records. In the past 5 years, the evidence on PPI in scaling has increased faster than in any previous period. We found 236 mutually nonexclusive PPI strategies among 120 scaling initiatives. Twenty‐four initiatives did not target a specific country; but most of those that did so (n = 96) occurred in higher‐income countries (n = 51). Community‐based primary health care was the most frequent level of care (n = 103). Mostly, patients and the public were involved throughout all scaling phases (n = 46) and throughout the continuum of collaboration (n = 45); the most frequently reported ethical lens regarding the rationale for PPI was consequentialist‐utilitarian (n = 96). Few papers reported PPI recruitment processes (n = 31) or incentives used (n = 18). PPI strategies occurred mostly in direct care (n = 88). Patient and public education was the PPI strategy most reported (n = 31), followed by population consultations (n = 30). Conclusions: PPI in scaling is increasing in HSS. Further investigation is needed to better document the PPI experience in scaling and ensure that it occurs in a meaningful and equitable way. Patient and Public Contribution: Two patients were involved in this review. They shared decisions on review questions, data collection instruments, protocol design, and findings dissemination. Review Registration: Open Science Framework on 19 August 2020 (https://osf.io/zqpx7/). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: When people who can use or benefit from research findings are engaged as partners on study teams, the quality and impact of findings are better. These people can include patients/consumers and clinicians who do not identify as researchers. They are referred to as "knowledge users". This partnered approach is called integrated knowledge translation (IKT). We know little about knowledge users' involvement in the conduct of systematic reviews. We aimed to evaluate team members' degree of meaningful engagement and their perceptions of having used an IKT approach when updating the Cochrane Review of Patient Decision Aids. Methods: We conducted a pre-post mixed methods study. We surveyed all team members at two time points. Before systematic review conduct, all participating team members indicated their preferred level of involvement within each of the 12 steps of the systematic review process from "Screen titles/abstracts" to "Provide feedback on draft article". After, they reported on their degree of satisfaction with their achieved level of engagement across each step and the degree of meaningful engagement using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS-22) across 7 domains scored from 100 (extremely meaningful engagement) to 0 (no meaningful engagement). We solicited their experiences with the IKT approach using open-ended questions. We analyzed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data using content analysis. We triangulated data at the level of study design and interpretation. Results: Of 21 team members, 20 completed the baseline survey (95.2% response rate) and 17/20 (85.0% response rate) the follow-up survey. There were 11 (55%) researchers, 3 (15%) patients/consumers, 5 (25%) clinician-researchers, and 1 (5%) graduate student. At baseline, preferred level of involvement in the 12 systematic review steps varied from n = 3 (15%) (search grey literature sources) to n = 20 (100%) (provide feedback on the systematic review article). At follow-up, 16 (94.1%) participants were totally or very satisfied with the extent to which they were involved in these steps. All (17, 100%) agreed that the process was co-production. Total PEIRS-22 scores revealed most participants reported extremely (13, 76.4%) or very (2, 11.8%) meaningful degree of engagement. Triangulated data revealed that participants indicated benefit to having been engaged in an authentic research process that incorporated diverse perspectives, resulting in better and more relevant outputs. Reported challenges were about time, resources, and the logistics of collaborating with a large group. Conclusion: Following the use of an IKT approach during the conduct of a systematic review, team members reported high levels of meaningful engagement. These results contribute to our understanding of ways to co-produce systematic reviews. Plain English Summary: When people who can use or benefit from research findings are engaged as partners on study teams, the quality and impact of findings are better. These people can include patients/consumers and clinicians who do not identify as researchers. This partnered approach is called integrated knowledge translation (IKT). This approach is rarely used and there is little information about using it with systematic reviews. A systematic review is a type of study that provides the best available evidence on a given topic by combining data from all existing studies. The aim of this study was to find out how engaged our team members felt when partnering on our systematic review about patient decision aids. Twenty of 21 team members participated in the study, including 11 researchers, 3 patients/consumers, 5 clinician-researchers, and 1 graduate student. We asked our team members to complete a survey about their experience as part of our IKT research process at two time points: before starting the study and after the study was done. Most team members felt extremely or very engaged in the process. All team members felt like partners. They gave examples of how this was achieved. Advantages to using the IKT approach included knowledge sharing, inclusion of more diverse voices, a more authentic research process, better and more relevant results, and personal benefits (e.g. enjoyment from being involved). Disadvantages to using this approach was that it took more time and resources. Three team members said there were no disadvantages. It is possible for patients/consumers and clinicians to partner and feel engaged with research teams doing systematic reviews. Our findings may help researchers engage knowledge users as equal partners on study teams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little is known about knowledge transfer with the public. We explored how citizens, physicians, and communication specialists understand knowledge transfer in public spaces such as libraries. The initial study aimed at evaluating the scaling up of a program on disseminating research findings on potentially inappropriate medication. Twenty-two citizen workshops were offered by 16 physicians and facilitated by 6 communication specialists to 322 citizens in libraries during spring 2019. We did secondary analysis using the recorded workshop discussions to explore the type of knowledge participants used. Participants described four kinds of knowledge: biomedical, sociocultural beliefs, value-based reasoning, and institutional knowledge. Biomedical knowledge included scientific evidence, research methods, clinical guidelines, and access to research outcomes. Participants discussed beliefs in scientific progress, innovative clinical practices, and doctors' behaviours. Participants discussed values related to reliability, transparency, respect for patient autonomy and participation in decision-making. All categories of participants used these four kinds of knowledge. However, their descriptions varied particularly for biomedical knowledge which was described by physician-speakers and communication specialists-facilitators as scientific evidence, epidemiological and clinical practice guidelines, and pathophysiological theories. Communication specialists-facilitators also described scientific journalistic sources and scientific journalistic reports as proxies of scientific evidence. Citizens described biomedical knowledge in terms of knowledge to make informed decisions. These findings offer insights for future scientific knowledge exchange interventions with the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]