Patient and public engagement in decision-making regarding infectious disease outbreak management: an integrative review

Abstract

IntroductionWorldwide, people experience the effects of infectious disease outbreaks on a regular basis. These effects vary from direct impact of the virus on health, to indirect impact of control measures on day-to-day life. Yet, incorporating the experiences, views and ideas of patients and the public in decision-making in managing outbreaks does not take place on a structural basis. However, this might be beneficial. We examined the current incorporation of patient and public engagement (PPE) in decision-making regarding outbreak management (OM).MethodsA systematic search was executed in PubMed, Embase, APA PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scopus and other literature sources. Papers describing PPE in decision-making regarding OM on a collective level (group-level) were included. Relevant information about study characteristics, methods, impact and embedment of PPE in decision-making in OM was collected.ResultsThe search yielded 4186 papers of which 13 were included. The papers varied in study context and design. Remarkably, no substantial patient engagement was identified. Overall, public engagement (PE) in decision-making regarding OM was mostly executed by a mix of methods, for example, workshops, interviews and surveys. Knowledge and idea sharing between the public and experts was deemed beneficial for establishing well-informed discussions. The efforts resulted in either direct implications for practice or recommendations in policy papers. Most papers described their efforts as a first step. No structural embedment of collective PE in decision-making regarding OM was identified. Furthermore, the quality of most papers was low to moderate due to insufficient description.ConclusionOverall, various practices for PE can be potentially valuable, but structural embedment in OM decision-making on a collective level was low. Before PPE can be permanently embedded in OM, more evidence on its impact needs to be collected. Furthermore, reporting on the engagement process and used terminology needs to be harmonised to ensure reproducibility and transparency.

‘More than likely the men come first. That’s just very frustrating’. A qualitative exploration of contextual factors affecting the implementation of injury prevention initiatives and the provision of effective injury management in elite-level women’s club football in Ireland

“…While the FIFA Women’s Football Strategy 201851 emphasised FIFA’s commitment to address these inequities, both on and off the pitch, Krech52 suggested that this strategy is limited due to the lack of any representation from players. Patient and public engagement is a core element of healthcare and athletes, coaches and medical personnel should be actively engaged in the design of research 53. Arguably, our study begins to address this lack of player representation and could provide governing bodies with evidence to begin addressing health-related inequities of substantial importance that have been voiced by players themselves.…”

Public engagement in government officials’ posts on social media during coronavirus lockdown

“…In summary, public engagement in the media context includes the communication and understanding between specialists and professionals and the ordinary public, which contributes to building up a scientifically literate society [ 53 ], particularly in the developing world [ 54 ] through increasing their health awareness. In addition, it helps the health sectors and officials in decision-making regarding outbreak management [ 55 ].…”

Exploring the impact of shielding advice on the wellbeing of individuals identified as clinically extremely vulnerable amid the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods evaluation

“…Interview participants described a spectrum of rational adaptations to the advice, with adjustments based on living situation and personal perceptions of risk [ 33 ]. Such findings suggest that it would be beneficial to engage CEV groups in the policy-making decision process for future public health emergencies; co-creation of targeted communication strategies has been shown to result in higher levels of adherence to behaviour change messages [ 34 – 36 ].…”