Mapping the role of patient and public involvement during the different stages of healthcare innovation: A scoping review

Abstract

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become increasingly important in the development, delivery and improvement of healthcare. PPI is used in healthcare innovation; yet, how it is used has been under-reported. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and map the current available empirical evidence on the role of PPI during different stages of healthcare innovation. Methods:The scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMAScR and included any study published in a peer-reviewed journal between 2004 and 2021 that reported on PPI in healthcare innovation within any healthcare setting or context in any country. The following databases were searched: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, HMIC and Google Scholar. We included any study type, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies. We excluded theoretical frameworks, conceptual, scientific or grey literature as well as discussion and opinion papers.Results: Of the 87 included studies, 81 (93%) focused on or were conducted by authors in developed countries. A wide range of conditions were considered, with more studies focusing on mental health (n = 18, 21%) and cancer care (n = 8, 9%). The vast majority of the studies focused on process and service innovations (n = 62, 71%). Seven studies focused on technological and clinical innovations (8%), while 12 looked at both technological and service innovations (14%). Only five studies examined systems innovation (5%) and one study looked across all types of innovations (1%). PPI is more common in the earlier stages of innovation, particularly problem identification and invention, in comparison to adoption and diffusion. Conclusion:Healthcare innovation tends to be a lengthy process. Yet, our study highlights that PPI is more common across earlier stages of innovation and focuses mostly on service innovation. Stronger PPI in later stages could support the adoption and diffusion of innovation.

Opportunities and Threats of the Legally Facilitated Performance-Based Managed Entry Agreements in Slovakia: The Early-Adoption Perspective

“…Patient outcomes are also increasingly important in assessing the benefits of these innovations. Greater patient and public involvement at later stages could promote the adoption and diffusion of innovations [ 24 ]. The amendment under discussion has made it possible to use patient insights for the first time.…”

Stress reduction interventions for patients with chronic diabetic foot ulcers: a qualitative study into patients and caregivers' perceptions

“…These suggestions are useful since they reflect the perspectives and needs of patients with DFUs and their family caregivers. In fact, patient and public involvement in healthcare provision, specifically in the design, conduct and dissemination of healthcare innovation services (such as the inclusion of stress reduction interventions in the DFUs treatment) is becoming more common in advanced health care systems [ 37 ].…”

Developing a Women's Thought Collective methodology for health research: The roles and responsibilities of researchers in the reflexive co‐production of knowledge

“…33 This is crucial within co-produced health research, where despite its political ambitions, lay participants are less commonly involved in healthcare planning, design, delivery and improvement 34 or the review of systems innovation. 35 Instead, they are more typically represented in technical aspects 36 of research more acceptable in neoliberal settings but still branded as co-production, such as activities like usability testing that can be more passive and defined because they have a preset agenda. 37 Concomitantly, theoretical guidance about how to involve lay populations in co-analysis of data has been obscure 38 with some suggestions that these processes need 'downgrading' 39 or risk being 'dirtied' and 'stretched' during co-production.…”