BackgroundTo identify the strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients in the design, delivery, and evaluation of health services.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, PsychINFO, Social Science Abstracts, EBSCO, and ISI Web of Science from 1990 to 2016 for empirical studies addressing the active participation of patients, caregivers, or families in the design, delivery and evaluation of health services to improve quality of care. Thematic analysis was used to identify (1) strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients, (2) outcomes of patient engagement, and (3) patients’ experiences of being engaged.ResultsForty-eight studies were included. Strategies and contextual factors that enable patient engagement were thematically grouped and related to techniques to enhance design, recruitment, involvement and leadership action, and those aimed to creating a receptive context. Reported outcomes ranged from educational or tool development and informed policy or planning documents (discrete products) to enhanced care processes or service delivery and governance (care process or structural outcomes). The level of engagement appears to influence the outcomes of service redesign—discrete products largely derived from low-level engagement (consultative unidirectional feedback)—whereas care process or structural outcomes mainly derived from high-level engagement (co-design or partnership strategies). A minority of studies formally evaluated patients’ experiences of the engagement process (n = 12; 25%). While most experiences were positive—increased self-esteem, feeling empowered, or independent—some patients sought greater involvement and felt that their involvement was important but tokenistic, especially when their requests were denied or decisions had already been made.ConclusionsPatient engagement can inform patient and provider education and policies, as well as enhance service delivery and governance. Additional evidence is needed to understand patients’ experiences of the engagement process and whether these outcomes translate into improved quality of care.RegistrationN/A (data extraction completed prior to registration on PROSPERO).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0784-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has acted as a catalyst for the development and adoption of a broad range of remote monitoring technologies (RMTs) in health care delivery. It is important to demonstrate how these technologies were implemented during the early stages of this pandemic to identify their application and barriers to adoption, particularly among vulnerable populations. Objective The purpose of this knowledge synthesis was to present the range of RMTs used in delivering care to patients with COVID-19 and to identify perceived benefits of and barriers to their use. The review placed a special emphasis on health equity considerations. Methods A rapid review of published research was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE, and QxMD for records published from the inception of COVID-19 (December 2019) to July 6, 2020. Synthesis involved content analysis of reported benefits of and barriers to the use of RMTs when delivering health care to patients with COVID-19, in addition to health equity considerations. Results Of 491 records identified, 48 publications that described 35 distinct RMTs were included in this review. RMTs included use of existing technologies (eg, videoconferencing) and development of new ones that have COVID-19–specific applications. Content analysis of perceived benefits generated 34 distinct codes describing advantages of RMTs, mapped to 10 themes overall. Further, 52 distinct codes describing barriers to use of RMTs were mapped to 18 themes. Prominent themes associated with perceived benefits included a lower burden of care (eg, for hospitals, health care practitioners; 28 records), reduced infection risk (n=33), and support for vulnerable populations (n=14). Prominent themes reflecting barriers to use of RMTs included equity-related barriers (eg, affordability of technology for users, poor internet connectivity, poor health literacy; n=16), the need for quality “best practice” guidelines for use of RMTs in clinical care (n=12), and the need for additional resources to develop and support new technologies (n=11). Overall, 23 of 48 records commented on equity characteristics that stratify health opportunities and outcomes, including general characteristics that vary over time (eg, age, comorbidities; n=17), place of residence (n=11), and socioeconomic status (n=7). Conclusions Results of this rapid review highlight the breadth of RMTs being used to monitor and inform treatment of COVID-19, the potential benefits of using these technologies, and existing barriers to their use. Results can be used to prioritize further efforts in the implementation of RMTs (eg, developing “best practice” guidelines for use of RMTs and generating strategies to improve equitable access for marginalized populations).

Background eHealth is the use of information and communication technologies to enable and improve health and health care services. It is crucial that medical students receive adequate training in eHealth as they will work in clinical environments that are increasingly being enabled by technology. This trend is especially accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic as it complicates traditional face-to-face medical consultations and highlights the need for innovative approaches in health care. Objective This review aims to evaluate the extent and nature of the existing literature on medical student training in eHealth. In detail, it aims to examine what this education consists of, the barriers, enhancing factors, and propositions for improving the medical curriculum. This review focuses primarily on some key technologies such as mobile health (mHealth), the internet of things (IoT), telehealth, and artificial intelligence (AI). Methods Searches were performed on 4 databases, and articles were selected based on the eligibility criteria. Studies had to be related to the training of medical students in eHealth. The eligibility criteria were studies published since 2014, from a peer-reviewed journal, and written in either English or French. A grid was used to extract and chart data. Results The search resulted in 25 articles. The most studied aspect was mHealth. eHealth as a broad concept, the IoT, AI, and programming were least covered. A total of 52% (13/25) of all studies contained an intervention, mostly regarding mHealth, electronic health records, web-based medical resources, and programming. The findings included various barriers, enhancing factors, and propositions for improving the medical curriculum. Conclusions Trends have emerged regarding the suboptimal present state of eHealth training and barriers, enhancing factors, and propositions for optimal training. We recommend that additional studies be conducted on the following themes: barriers, enhancing factors, propositions for optimal training, competencies that medical students should acquire, learning outcomes from eHealth training, and patient care outcomes from this training. Additional studies should be conducted on eHealth and each of its aspects, especially on the IoT, AI, programming, and eHealth as a broad concept. Training in eHealth is critical to medical practice in clinical environments that are increasingly being enabled by technology. The need for innovative approaches in health care during the COVID-19 pandemic further highlights the relevance of this training.

Although the costs of doctors' visits and hospital stays in Canada are covered by national public health insurance, the cost of outpatient prescription drugs is not. To solve problems of access, Canadian provinces have introduced provincial prescription drug benefit programs. This study analyzes the prescription drug policymaking process in five Canadian provinces between 1992 and 2004 with a view to (1) determining the federal government's role in the area of prescription drugs; (2) describing the policymaking process; (3) identifying factors in each province's choice of a policy; (4) identifying patterns in those factors across the five provinces; and (5) assessing the federal government's influence on the policies chosen. Analysis shows that despite significant differences in policy choices, the ideological motivations of the provinces were unexpectedly similar. The findings also highlight the importance of institutional factors, for example, in provinces' decision to compete rather than to collaborate. We conclude that, to date, Canada's federalism laboratory has only partly benefited the Canadian public. Cost pressures may, however, eventually overcome barriers to cooperation between the provincial and the federal governments, enabling them to capitalize on Canada's federal structure to improve the accessibility and affordability of drugs.

Context Partnership between patients and health‐care professionals (HCPs) is a concept that needs a valid, practical measure to facilitate its use by patients and HCPs. Objective To co‐construct a tool for measuring the degree of partnership between patients and HCPs. Design The CADICEE tool was developed in four steps: (1) generate key dimensions of patient partnership in clinical care; (2) co‐construct the tool; (3) assess face and content validity from patients’ and HCPs’ viewpoints; and (4) assess the usability of the tool and explore its measurement performance. Results The CADICEE tool comprises 24 items under 7 dimensions: 1) relationship of Confidence or trust between the patient and the HCPs; 2) patient Autonomy; 3) patient participation in Decisions related to care; 4) shared Information on patient health status or care; 5) patient personal Context; 6) Empathy; and 7) recognition of Expertise. Assessment of the tool's usability and measurement performance showed, in a convenience sample of 246 patients and relatives, high face validity, acceptability and relevance for both patients and HCPs, as well as good construct validity. Conclusions The CADICEE tool is developed in co‐construction with patients to evaluate the degree of partnership in care desired by patients in their relationship with HCPs. The tool can be used in various clinical contexts and in different health‐care settings. Patient or Public Contribution Patients were involved in determining the importance of constructing this questionnaire. They co‐constructed it, pre‐tested it and were part of the entire questionnaire development process. Three patients participated in the writing of the article.