Nederlandse vertaling en eerste stappen in validatie van de PPEET om burger- en patiëntenparticipatie te evalueren

Bavelaar, Laura; Tol, Lisa S. van; Caljouw, Monique A. A.; Steen, Jenny T. van der

doi:10.1007/s12508-021-00316-9

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Questions of the PPEET can be answered based on a 5‐point Likert scale (totally disagree to totally agree) or with yes/no. The Dutch version of the PPEET was used in this study 23 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating patient participation in value‐based healthcare: Current state and lessons learned

Westerink,

Garvelink,

van Uden‐Kraan

et al. 2024

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionValue‐based healthcare (VBHC) focusses on increasing value for patients. Hospitals aim to implement VBHC via value improvement (VI) teams for medical conditions. To determine the patient's perspective on value, collective patient participation is important in these teams. We therefore evaluated the current state of patient participation in VI teams and share lessons learned.MethodsThis mixed‐methods study was conducted at seven collaborating hospitals in the Netherlands. A questionnaire (the public and patient engagement evaluation tool) was tailored to the study's context, completed by VI team members (n = 147 from 76 different VI teams) and analysed with descriptive statistics. In addition, 30 semistructured interviews were held with VI team members and analysed through thematic analysis. Data were collected between February 2022 and January 2023 and were triangulated by mapping the quantitative results to the interview themes.ResultsThirty‐eight of the 76 included VI teams reported using a form of patient participation. Many respondents (71%) indicated a lack of a clear strategy and goal for patient participation. Multiple VI team members believed that specific knowledge and skills are required for patients to participate in a VI team, but this led to concerns regarding the representativeness of participating patients. Furthermore, while patients indicated that they experienced some level of hierarchy, they also stated that they did not feel restricted hereby. Lastly, patients were satisfied with their participation and felt like equal VI team members (100%), but they did mention a lack of feedback from the VI team on their input.ConclusionThe results imply the lack of full implementation of patient participation within VI teams. Guidelines should be developed that provide information on how to include a representative group of patients, which methods to use, how to evaluate the impact of patient participation, and how to give feedback to participating patients.Patient and Public ContributionTwo patient advisors were part of the research team and attended the research team meetings. They were involved as research partners in all phases of the study, including drafting the protocol (e.g., drafting interview guides and selecting the measurement instrument), interpreting the results and writing this article.

show abstract

“…Questions of the PPEET can be answered based on a 5‐point Likert scale (totally disagree to totally agree) or with yes/no. The Dutch version of the PPEET was used in this study 23 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Dutch version of the PPEET was used in this study. 23 We selected module B as the main questionnaire, which focuses on ongoing engagement activities. We have added a few questions to both the patient and the staff questionnaire (see Supporting Information S2: Appendix B):…”

Section: Questionnairementioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating patient participation in value‐based healthcare: Current state and lessons learned

Westerink,

Garvelink,

van Uden‐Kraan

et al. 2024

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) [ 61 ] and the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) [ 59 , 60 ] will be used to evaluate patient/public engagement. The PEIRS is a 37-item questionnaire that can be used to quantify meaningful patient engagement in research [ 61 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Patient/public partners will be asked to complete PEIRS after the Delphi study and the consensus meeting. The PPEET consists of a series of questionnaires for patient/public partners, project coordinators and managers of organizations [ 59 , 60 ], of which the first two (i.e., the patient partner and project coordinator questionnaire) will be used. Patient/public partners will be asked to complete the patient partner questionnaire ‘one-time engagements’ module after the onboarding sessions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study protocol for developing, piloting and disseminating the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline: a new reporting guideline for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are important tools in the evidence-based selection of these instruments. COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) has developed a comprehensive and widespread guideline to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments, but key information is often missing in published reviews. This hinders the appraisal of the quality of outcome measurement instruments, impacts the decisions of knowledge users regarding their appropriateness, and compromises reproducibility and interpretability of the reviews’ findings. To facilitate sufficient, transparent, and consistent reporting of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments, an extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guideline will be developed: the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline. Methods The PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will be developed in accordance with recommendations for reporting guideline development from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. First, a candidate reporting item list will be created through an environmental literature scan and expert consultations. Second, an international Delphi study will be conducted with systematic review authors, biostatisticians, epidemiologists, psychometricians/clinimetricians, reporting guideline developers, journal editors as well as patients, caregivers, and members of the public. Delphi panelists will rate candidate items for inclusion on a 5-point scale, suggest additional candidate items, and give feedback on item wording and comprehensibility. Third, the draft PRISMA-COSMIN guideline and user manual will be iteratively piloted by applying it to systematic reviews in several disease areas to assess its relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility, along with usability and user satisfaction. Fourth, a consensus meeting will be held to finalize the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline through roundtable discussions and voting. Last, a user manual will be developed and the final PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will be disseminated through publications, conferences, newsletters, and relevant websites. Additionally, relevant journals and organizations will be invited to endorse and implement PRISMA-COSMIN. Throughout the project, evaluations will take place to identify barriers and facilitators of involving patient/public partners and employing a virtual process. Discussion The PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will ensure that the reports of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are complete and informative, enhancing their reproducibility, ease of use, and uptake.

show abstract

“…The content of existing evaluation tools was often not applicable to our project [ 22 – 25 ]; therefore we modified their content to align with project activities. After the onboarding sessions, they completed modified versions of the Acceptability E-Scale [ 22 ] and the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) [ 23 , 24 ]. After the Delphi study, they completed modified versions of the Acceptability E-Scale, the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) [ 25 ] and the PANELVIEW tool [ 26 ].…”

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

A blueprint for patient and public involvement in the development of a reporting guideline for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024

Elsman,

Smith,

Hofstetter

et al. 2024

Res Involv Engagem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In recent years, projects to develop reporting guidelines have attempted to integrate the perspectives of patients and public members. Best practices for patient and public involvement (PPI) in such projects have not yet been established. We recently developed an extension of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), to be used for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) for OMIs 2024. Patients and public members formed a small but impactful stakeholder group. We critically evaluated the PPI component in this project and developed recommendations for conducting PPI when developing reporting guidelines. Main text A patient partner was an integral research team member at the project development and grant application stage. Once the project started, five patient and public contributors (PPCs) were recruited to participate in the Delphi study; three PPCs contributed to subsequent steps. We collected quantitative feedback through surveys; qualitative feedback was garnered through a focus group discussion after the Delphi study and through debrief meetings after subsequent project activities. Feedback was thematically combined with reflections from the research team, and was predominantly positive. The following themes emerged: importance of PPI partnership, number of PPCs involved, onboarding, design of Delphi surveys, flexibility in the process, complexity of PPI in methodological research, and power imbalances. Impacts of PPI on the content and presentation of the reporting guideline were evident, and reciprocal learning between PPCs and the research team occurred throughout the project. Lessons learned were translated into 17 recommendations for future projects. Conclusion Integrating PPI in the development of PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 was feasible and considered valuable by PPCs and the research team. Our approach can be applied by others wishing to integrate PPI in developing reporting guidelines.

show abstract

Nederlandse vertaling en eerste stappen in validatie van de PPEET om burger- en patiëntenparticipatie te evalueren

Cited by 4 publications

References 24 publications

Evaluating patient participation in value‐based healthcare: Current state and lessons learned

Evaluating patient participation in value‐based healthcare: Current state and lessons learned

Study protocol for developing, piloting and disseminating the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline: a new reporting guideline for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments

A blueprint for patient and public involvement in the development of a reporting guideline for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About