The Experience of Patients Engaged in Co-designing Care Processes

Lavoie‐Tremblay, Mélanie; OʼConnor, Patricia; Biron, Alain; MacGibbon, Brenda; Cyr, Guylaine; Fréchette, Julie

doi:10.1097/hcm.0000000000000132

Cited by 12 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Country of Publication. Among the 18 studies, seven (38.9%) were conducted in the United Kingdom, [41][42][43][44][45][46][47] five (27.8%) in Canada, [48][49][50][51][52] two (11.1%) in the Netherlands, 53-54 two (11.1%) in Australia, [55][56] one (5.6%) in Norway, 57 and one (5.6%) in Slovenia. 58 Study Setting.…”

Section: Descriptive Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three (16.7%) studies were conducted in hospital or secondary care settings only. [49][50]54 Of these studies, two (50.0% of 4) were conducted in academic or teaching hospitals, [49][50] and one (25.0% of 4) in a general hospital. 54 Moreover, one study (5.6%) was conducted in a primary care setting only, 45 and two (11.1%) were conducted in both primary care and hospital settings.…”

Section: Descriptive Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Included studies also employed a variety of qualitative study designs and analytic Patient Experience Journal, Volume 6, Issue 3 -2019 approaches. Among the most commonly used included qualitative description (3; 16.7%), [49][50][51] case study (2; 11.1%), 47,58 ethnography (2; 11.1%), 42,45 thematic analysis and adapted approaches (2; 11.1%), 41,43 and communitybased and participatory designs (2; 11.1%). 44,48 Among the least commonly employed designs and approaches were: discourse analysis (1; 5.6%), 55 realistic qualitative methods (1; 5.6%), 56 and grounded theory (1; 5.6%).…”

Section: Descriptive Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An equal number of studies reported multiple (9; 50.0%), [42][43][44][45][46][47]52,54,57 and single data collection methods (9; 50.0%). 41,[48][49][50][51]53,[55][56]58 Among the studies that used multiple methods, all used variations of semi-structured and/or in-depth interviews. [42][43][44][45][46][47]52,54,57 Seven (77.7% of 9) used focus groups, 43-47,52,57 three (33.3% of 9) used participant observation, 42,54,57 and three (33.3% of 9) used document analysis.…”

Section: Descriptive Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…49 Of the eight studies that involved a single participant group, all included patients only. [44][45]48,[50][51][54][55]58 Across all studies that reported their participant groups, there were 504 patients of which 53 were patient ambassadors, representatives of patient organizations, or served in a dual role as both a patient and service provider. These studies also included the perspectives and experiences of 173 healthcare professionals.…”

Section: Descriptive Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Conceptual frameworks and degrees of patient engagement in the planning and designing of health services: A scoping review of qualitative studies

Majid¹,

Gagliardi²

2019

Patient Experience Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasingly, patients are being recognized as essential partners in the solutions to healthcare system problems. Patient engagement has been referred to as the "holy grail" and next "blockbuster drug" of health care because it may be revolutionary for transforming the design, delivery, and responsiveness of health services. Patients engage in a variety of healthcare activities, and there are multiple frameworks that depict the degrees of patient engagement in these activities. The literature also uses a variety of terms and concepts to depict the degrees of patient engagement. Moreover, meaningful patient engagement is a concept widely utilized in the literature without a clear definition. The conceptual boundaries and differences between degrees of engagement are unclear. This scoping review summarizes the descriptive characteristics, the degrees of engagement, and examines the terms used to depict meaningful engagement as conceptualized by studies on planning and designing of administrative or health services and interventions. The research questions for this study are: What are the descriptive and study characteristics of studies where patients engage in planning and designing activities? What terms do studies use to depict meaningful patient engagement? This review found a variety of terms used by the literature to depict meaningful engagement: collaboration, cooperation, co-production, active involvement, partnership, and consumer and peer leadership. This review also found that studies seldom use patient engagement frameworks to identify the degree of engagement. The implications of these findings are discussed in light of the literature on patient engagement and recommendations for future practice are provided.

show abstract

Section: Descriptive Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Descriptive Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Descriptive Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Descriptive Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Descriptive Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Conceptual frameworks and degrees of patient engagement in the planning and designing of health services: A scoping review of qualitative studies

Majid¹,

Gagliardi²

2019

Patient Experience Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Consumers’ and health providers’ views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis

Merner

Schonfeld

Virgona

et al. 2023

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Co‐design to deliver service improvement: What does this mean and how can we do it? A qualitative study with upper gastrointestinal cancer patients and professionals

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is strategic objective to incorporate the principles and practice of co-design into routine service development and improvement.Aim: The aim was to explore the concept and feasibility of service co-design with patients and health professionals with regards to the upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer care pathway.Methods and Results: Qualitative telephone interviews and face-to-face focus groups in one region of England. Twenty patients completed interviews. Nine patients and ten professionals formed two focus groups. Patients were referred through the urgent (two week) GP referral route and were within six months of receiving their first treatment for an UGI cancer. Professionals were working as service planners and providers of the UGI cancer care pathway. Thematic analysis was undertaken. Six themes emerged: Responsibilities and expectations, Knowledge and understanding, Valuing patient input, Building relationships, Environment for co-design activities, Impact and effectiveness. Based on the themes a checklist has been created to provide practical suggestions for both professionals and patients on approaching co-design for service improvement. Conclusion:This study offers policy and practice partners a clearer understanding of co-design and factors to consider when approaching co-design in real life settings.cancer, co-design, health care professionals, patients, service improvement | INTRODUCTIONTailoring care to patient need and improving patient experience are frequently cited goals of healthcare systems internationally. 1 Co-design of services with professionals, patients and the public is heralded as a mechanism through which person-centred care may be achieved. For example, co-design, that is co-creation of services with stakeholders, is recognised as one of the nine principles required for the successful implementation of the 2015 Cancer Strategy for England. 2 Existing systematic reviews provide a synthesis of evidence on co-design within healthcare. As a result of co-design developments within health care services have been implemented. 3 The implemented changes included: the production of new or improved sources of information for patients; simplifying appointment procedures; extending clinic opening times; improving transport to treatment units; improving access for people with disabilities; and a cultural change within organisations to involve patients. The strategic imperative to embed co-design within service development is supported by

show abstract

The Experience of Patients Engaged in Co-designing Care Processes

Cited by 12 publications

References 28 publications

Conceptual frameworks and degrees of patient engagement in the planning and designing of health services: A scoping review of qualitative studies

Conceptual frameworks and degrees of patient engagement in the planning and designing of health services: A scoping review of qualitative studies

Consumers’ and health providers’ views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis

Co‐design to deliver service improvement: What does this mean and how can we do it? A qualitative study with upper gastrointestinal cancer patients and professionals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About