Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered significant changes in healthcare. As they were mainly driven by professionals and are likely to influence healthcare in the future, it is of utmost importance to consider patients' perspectives equally. We, therefore, explored the lived experiences of patients and patient representatives in all six World Health Organisation (WHO) regions regarding healthcare at the time of COVID-19 and extracted suggestions for care redesign after the pandemic. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews until saturation. Thematic analysis followed a modified form of meaning condensation. We established rigour by transcript checking, inter-coder agreement, quote variation and standardised reporting. Results: Disadvantaged people experienced an unprecedented inequity in healthcare due to the pandemic. The main reasons were the reduction in public care services and limited access to information, transportation, technology and income. Stigmatisation from COVID-19 differed between cultural contexts and ranged from none to feeling 'ashamed' and 'totally bashed'. Participants experienced telehealth as indispensable but with limitations. These included giving 'bad news', such as having an eye removed because of melanoma, and the difficulty of providing end-of-life care over the phone. Patient representatives redefined their role and became indispensable influencers throughout the pandemic and beyond. Conclusion: We reached out to individuals with a diversity of perspectives, including minorities and marginalised populations. A systematic exclusion of people with limited technology access increases inequity in healthcare and biases research findings. Since preferences and personal meanings drive behaviour and could be foundations for targeted interventions, they must be considered in all groups of people to increase society's resilience as a whole.
Background: Although procurement of innovation is an established policy tool used to stimulate collaboration between supply- and demand-side entities during the development of new technologies, there is little scientific literature describing the process as applied in health care settings. Furthermore, what literature exists contains inconsistencies of terms, definitions, and/or concepts related to procurement of innovation. This protocol details our process for a systematic scoping review to describe the current scope of literature and to provide terminology clarification. Methods: A search strategy will be used to search PubMed, EMBASE [OVID], CINAHL [EBSCO], PsycINFO [ProQUEST], ABI/INFORM, ISI Web of Knowledge, EBSCO, JSTOR, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar; grey literature, non-scientific reports, policy documents and expert recommendations will also be considered as additional sources for texts. Two researchers will screen titles and abstracts for inclusion/exclusion criteria, followed by full texts. We will extract the following data, if applicable: title, authors, date, author affiliations, country, journal/publication characteristics, setting, aims/purpose, methodology, sample characteristics, assessment/evaluation tools, outcome parameters, key findings, relevance, and terminology usage/definitions. Results will be presented narratively and visually. Discussion: This paper describes the steps of our proposed systematic scoping review to identify and analyse scientific and non-scientific literature related to procurement of innovation and/or innovation of procurement in health care settings, with a particular focus on digital health technologies. Results are intended to demonstrate the current scope of literature, to provide clarity in language and therefore to serve as a first step for further research in this growing field.
Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an essential part of health outcome measurement and vital to patient-centricity and valued-based care. Several international consortia have developed core outcome sets and many of them include PROs. PROs are measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROs and PROMs can be generic or specific to certain diseases or conditions. While the characteristics of generic PROs and PROMs are well recognised as widely relevant and applicable across different domains, diseases and conditions, there is a lack of knowledge on the types of PROs measured by generic PROMs. We also do not know in which disease areas generic PROs and PROMs are commonly used. To date, there has been no systematic review solely focusing on generic PROMs, what they measure and their areas of application. Objectives: This systematic review will identify core PROs measured by generic PROMs used in adult populations and the areas in which they are applied. Methods: We will conduct a systematic review of reviews. The screening process and the reporting will comply with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) 2020 Statement. We will use four databases, Medline [PubMed], CINHAL [Ebsco], Cochrane [Cochrane Library], and PsycINFO [Ovid], and reports from international consortia. Inclusion criteria are systematic reviews, meta-analysis or patient-reported outcome sets developed by international consortia reporting on generic PROMs in adult populations. Articles primarily focusing on patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), children or adolescents, or those not written in English will be excluded. Risk of bias will be assessed by checking if the included articles comply with established guidelines for systematic reviews such as the PRISMA statement. We will extract generic PROMs and PROs measured by these PROMs, and the areas applied from the selected articles and reports. Extracted data and information will be quantitatively and qualitatively synthesised without statistical interference. The quality of the synthesised evidences will be assessed by clarifying the strengths, limitations and possible biases in our review.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.