BackgroundPatient and public engagement is growing, but evaluative efforts remain limited. Reviews looking at evaluation tools for patient engagement in individual decision making do exist, but no similar articles in research and health systems have been published.ObjectiveSystematically review and appraise evaluation tools for patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making.MethodsWe searched literature published between January 1980 and February 2016. Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL and PsycINFO) were consulted, as well as grey literature obtained through Google, subject‐matter experts, social media and engagement organization websites. Two independent reviewers appraised the evaluation tools based on 4 assessment criteria: scientific rigour, patient and public perspective, comprehensiveness and usability.ResultsIn total, 10 663 unique references were identified, 27 were included. Most of these tools were developed in the last decade and were designed to support improvement of engagement activities. Only 11% of tools were explicitly based on a literature review, and just 7% were tested for reliability. Patients and members of the public were involved in designing 56% of the tools, mainly in the piloting stage, and 18.5% of tools were designed to report evaluation results to patients and the public.ConclusionA growing number of evaluation tools are available to support patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making. However, the scientific rigour with which such evaluation tools are developed could be improved, as well as the level of patient and public engagement in their design and reporting.

Most shared decision-making (SDM) models within healthcare have been limited to the patientphysician dyad. As a first step towards promoting an interprofessional approach to SDM in primary care, this article reports how an interprofessional and interdisciplinary group developed and achieved consensus on a new interprofessional SDM model. The key concepts within published reviews of SDM models and interprofessionalism were identified, analysed, and discussed by the group in order to reach consensus on the new interprofessional SDM (IP-SDM) model. The IP-SDM model comprises three levels: the individual (micro) level and two healthcare system (meso and macro) levels. At the individual level, the patient presents with a health condition that requires decision-making and follows a structured process to make an informed, value-based decision in concert with a team of healthcare professionals. The model acknowledges (at the meso level) the influence of individual team members' professional roles including the decision coach and organizational routines. At the macro level it acknowledges the influence of system level factors (i.e. health policies, professional organisations, and social context) on the meso and individual levels. Subsequently, the IP-SDM model will be validated with other stakeholders.

There are few published examples of experiences involving patients and the public in HTA. These examples show that patients' or the public's perspectives could add important dimensions to the evaluation of health technologies. However, there is a need to develop more systematic approaches to considering patients' and the public's perspectives in HTA.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundDeliberative dialogues have recently captured attention in the public health policy arena because they have the potential to address several key factors that influence the use of research evidence in policymaking. We conducted an evaluation of three deliberative dialogues convened in Canada by the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy in order to learn more about deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy.MethodsThe evaluation included a formative assessment of participants’ views about and experiences with ten key design features of the dialogues, and a summative assessment of participants’ intention to use research evidence of the type that was discussed at the dialogue. We surveyed participants immediately after each dialogue was completed and again six months later. We analyzed the ratings using descriptive statistics and the written comments by conducting a thematic analysis.ResultsA total of 31 individuals participated in the three deliberative dialogues that we evaluated. The response rate was 94% (N = 29; policymakers (n = 9), stakeholders (n = 18), researchers (n = 2)) for the initial survey and 56% (n = 14) for the follow-up. All 10 of the design features that we examined as part of the formative evaluation were rated favourably by all participant groups. The findings of the summative evaluation demonstrated a mean behavioural intention score of 5.8 on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).ConclusionOur findings reinforce the promise of deliberative dialogues as a strategy for supporting evidence-informed public health policies. Additional work is needed to understand more about which design elements work in which situations and for different issues, and whether intention to use research evidence is a suitable substitute for measuring actual behaviour change.

The study stresses the importance of conducting rigorous and compelling evaluations to inform HTA agencies' decision to adopt, or reject, public involvement practices.