scholarly journals Metrics and Evaluation Tools for Patient Engagement in Healthcare Organization- and System-Level DecisionMaking: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. 889-903 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vadim Dukhanin ◽  
Rachel Topazian ◽  
Matthew DeCamp
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 378-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi ◽  
Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun ◽  
France Légaré

Considering the growing recognition of the importance of patient engagement in healthcare decisions, research and delivery systems, it is important to ensure high quality and efficient patient engagement evaluation tools. In this commentary, we will first highlight the definition and importance of patient engagement. Then we discuss the psychometric properties of the patient engagement evaluation tools identified in a recent review on patient engagement in healthcare organization- and system-level decision-making. Lastly, we suggest future directions for patient engagement and its evaluation tools.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 247-249
Author(s):  
Marion Danis

Initiatives to engage the public in health policy decisions have been widely endorsed and used, yet agreed upon methods for systematically evaluating the effectiveness of these initiatives remain to be developed. Dukhanin, Topazian, and DeCamp have thus developed a useful taxonomy of evaluation criteria derived from a systematic review of published evaluation tools that might serve as the basis for systematic evaluation. In considering the application of such a taxonomy, it is important to appreciate the political space in which health policy decisions occur. In this context, public engagement initiatives are likely to have a modest and unpredictable impact on policy decisions. Other goals, aside from influencing policy decisions, such as informing the public about issues, identifying the public’s values, enhancing public support for decisions, and promoting public discourse, are likely to be more feasible. While Dukanan and colleagues did not aim to do so, future efforts to align guidance for planning public engagement initiatives with evaluation tools would be useful to promote the success of public engagement initiatives.


2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-50
Author(s):  
Zackary Berger

In a rigorous systematic review, Dukhanin and colleagues categorize metrics and evaluative tools of the engagement of patient, public, consumer, and community in decision-making in healthcare institutions and systems. The review itself is ably done and the categorizations lead to a useful understanding of the necessary elements of engagement, and a suite of measures relevant to implementing engagement in systems. Nevertheless, the question remains whether the engagement of patient representatives in institutional or systemic deliberations will lead to improved clinical outcomes or increased engagement of individual patients themselves in care. Attention to the conceptual foundations of patient engagement would help make this systematic review relevant to the clinical care of patients.


2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoine Boivin

Patient engagement practices are increasingly incorporated in health research, governance, and care. More recently, a large number of evaluation tools and metrics have been developed to support engagement evaluation. This growing interest in evaluation reflects a maturation of the patient engagement field, moving from a "craft" to a reflective "art and science," with more explicit expected benefits and risks, better understood conditions for success and failure, and increasingly rigorous evaluation instruments to improve engagement theories and interventions. It also supports a more critical view of engagement science, moving beyond reductionist views of engagement as a "black box technology" to a more subtle view of this broad category of complex interventions. Structured evaluation can advance patient engagement by supporting more reflective partnerships between patients, clinicians, health system leaders and citizens. This can help clarify mutual (and potentially contradictory) expectations toward engagement, provide a reality check toward claims of benefits and harms, and increase health systems’ capacity to implement effective engagement practices over time. To do so, closer collaborations are required between engagement scientists and practitioners to align the theories, practice and evaluation of patient and community engagement.


2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Keely Jordan ◽  
Todd P. Lewis ◽  
Bayard Roberts

Abstract Background There is a growing concern that the quality of health systems in humanitarian crises and the care they provide has received little attention. To help better understand current practice and research on health system quality, this paper aimed to examine the evidence on the quality of health systems in humanitarian settings. Methods This systematic review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol. The context of interest was populations affected by humanitarian crisis in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). We included studies where the intervention of interest, health services for populations affected by crisis, was provided by the formal health system. Our outcome of interest was the quality of the health system. We included primary research studies, from a combination of information sources, published in English between January 2000 and January 2019 using quantitative and qualitative methods. We used the High Quality Health Systems Framework to analyze the included studies by quality domain and sub-domain. Results We identified 2285 articles through our search, of which 163 were eligible for full-text review, and 55 articles were eligible for inclusion in our systematic review. Poor diagnosis, inadequate patient referrals, and inappropriate treatment of illness were commonly cited barriers to quality care. There was a strong focus placed on the foundations of a health system with emphasis on the workforce and tools, but a limited focus on the health impacts of health systems. The review also suggests some barriers to high quality health systems that are specific to humanitarian settings such as language barriers for refugees in their host country, discontinued care for migrant populations with chronic conditions, and fears around provider safety. Conclusion The review highlights a large gap in the measurement of quality both at the point of care and at the health system level. There is a need for further work particularly on health system measurement strategies, accountability mechanisms, and patient-centered approaches in humanitarian settings.


2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Momo Kadia ◽  
Christian Akem Dimala ◽  
Noah T. Fongwen ◽  
Adrian D. Smith

Abstract Introduction Programmes that merge management of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and tuberculosis (TB) aim to improve HIV/TB co-infected patients’ access to comprehensive treatment. However, several reports from sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) indicate suboptimal uptake of antiretroviral therapy (ART) even after integration of HIV and TB treatment. This study assessed ART uptake, its barriers and enablers in programmes integrating TB and HIV treatment in SSA. Method A systematic review was performed. Seven databases were searched for eligible quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies published from March 2004 through July 2019. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to obtain pooled estimates of ART uptake. A thematic approach was used to analyse and synthesise data on barriers and enablers. Results Of 5139 references identified, 27 were included in the review: 23/27 estimated ART uptake and 10/27 assessed barriers to and/or enablers of ART uptake. The pooled ART uptake was 53% (95% CI: 42, 63%) and between-study heterogeneity was high (I2 = 99.71%, p < 0.001). WHO guideline on collaborative TB/HIV activities and sample size were associated with heterogeneity. There were statistically significant subgroup effects with high heterogeneity after subgroup analyses by region, guideline on collaborative TB/HIV activities, study design, and sample size. The most frequently described socioeconomic and individual level barriers to ART uptake were stigma, low income, and younger age group. The most frequently reported health system-related barriers were limited staff capacity, shortages in medical supplies, lack of infrastructure, and poor adherence to or lack of treatment guidelines. Clinical barriers included intolerance to anti-TB drugs, fear of drug toxicity, and contraindications to antiretrovirals. Health system enablers included good management of the procurement, supply, and dispensation chain; convenience and accessibility of treatment services; and strong staff capacity. Availability of psychosocial support was the most frequently reported enabler of uptake at the community level. Conclusions In SSA, programmes integrating treatment of TB and HIV do not, in general, achieve high ART uptake but we observe a net improvement in uptake after WHO issued the 2012 guidelines on collaborative TB/HIV activities. The recurrence of specific modifiable system-level and patient-level factors in the literature reveals key intervention points to improve ART uptake in these programmes. Systematic review registration: CRD42019131933.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paulina Daw ◽  
Thomas M. Withers ◽  
Jet J. C. S. Veldhuijzen van Zanten ◽  
Alexander Harrison ◽  
Colin J. Greaves

Abstract Background There is a longstanding research-to-practice gap in the delivery of cardiac rehabilitation for patients with heart failure. Despite adequate evidence confirming that comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation can improve quality of life and decrease morbidity and mortality in heart failure patients, only a fraction of eligible patients receives it. Many studies and reviews have identified patient-level barriers that might contribute to this disparity, yet little is known about provider- and system-level influences. Methods A systematic review using narrative synthesis. The aims of the systematic review were to a) determine provider- and system-level barriers and enablers that affect the delivery of cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure and b) juxtapose identified barriers with possible solutions reported in the literature. A comprehensive search strategy was applied to the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, EThoS and ProQuest databases. Articles were included if they were empirical, peer-reviewed, conducted in any setting, using any study design and describing factors influencing the delivery of cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure patients. Data were synthesised using inductive thematic analysis and a triangulation protocol to identify convergence/contradiction between different data sources. Results Seven eligible studies were identified. Thematic analysis identified nine overarching categories of barriers and enablers which were classified into 24 and 26 themes respectively. The most prevalent categories were ‘the organisation of healthcare system’, ‘the organisation of cardiac rehabilitation programmes’, ‘healthcare professional’ factors and ‘guidelines’. The most frequent themes included ‘lack of resources: time, staff, facilities and equipment’ and ‘professional’s knowledge, awareness and attitude’. Conclusions Our systematic review identified a wide range of provider- and system-level barriers impacting the delivery of cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure, along with a range of potential solutions. This information may be useful for healthcare professionals to deliver, plan or commission cardiac rehabilitation services, as well as future research.


Open Medicine ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 513-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Wahlster ◽  
Shane Scahill ◽  
Sanjay Garg ◽  
Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar

AbstractObjective: To identify the viewpoints and perceptions of different stakeholders regarding high cost medicines (HCMs). Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify original research articles. Using predefined categories, data related to the viewpoints of different stakeholders was systematically extracted and analyzed. Results: Thirty seven original research articles matched the criteria. The main stakeholders identified include physicians, patients, public and health funding authorities. The influence of media and other economic and ethical issues were also identified in the literature. A large number of stakeholders were concerned about lack of access to HCMs. Physicians have difficulty balancing the the rational use of expensive drugs while at the same time acting as “patients’ advocate”. Patients would like to know about all treatment options, even if they may not be able to afford them. The process and criteria for reimbursement should be transparent and access has to be equitable across patient groups. Conclusion: Access to HCMs could be improved through transparency and involvement of all stakeholders, especially patients and the public. Moral issues and the “rule of rescue” could influence decision-making process significantly. At system level, objectivity is important to ensure that the system is equitable and transparent.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document