The Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool: forward-backwards translation and cultural adaption to Norwegian

Garratt, Andrew; Sagen, Joachim; Børøsund, Elin; Varsi, Cecilie; Kjeken, Ingvild; Dagfinrud, Hanne; Moe, Rikke Helene

doi:10.1186/s12891-022-05514-3

Cited by 8 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Extended hypothesis testing when evaluating rigour in outcome measures is suggested in a previous study 70. The findings from this review may work as a fundament when considering additional variables to test.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Patient engagement in the development and delivery of healthcare services: a systematic scoping review

Sagen

Smedslund

Simonsen³

et al. 2023

BMJ Open Qual

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPatient engagement (PE) is required to improve future healthcare services. PE in the development and delivery of healthcare services is likely to be complex but is scarcely described.ObjectivesThe objective of this scoping review was to summarise primary studies on mesolevel PE regarding structure, process and outcomes. More specifically, the aim was to explore barriers and facilitators to successful PE, how persons are engaged in the process and summarise reported consequences.MethodA systematic scoping review was conducted, searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane and PsycINFO databases. Primary studies, published between 7 July 2005 and 4 October 2022, were considered for inclusion. Two reviewers extracted data about PE (eg, attributes of PE settings, facilitators and barriers, and outcomes to PE) and the first author coded the extracted data into structural, processual and outcome themes.ResultsOf 8588 identified records, 37 studies were eligible. Most of the included studies were conducted in Europe (n=19; 51%) and North America (n=13; 35%). Structures that ensure sufficient stakeholder representativeness and PE knowledge through education may facilitate the PE process further, regardless of the environmental setting. Interpersonal relationships with uneven power dynamics were reported as noteworthy processual barriers to meaningful PE, while clearly described roles and tasks were reported as important facilitators. In contrast to hard outcomes with operationalised PE effects, the most noteworthy outcomes of PE were reported as soft processual consequences such as patient representatives improving their self-esteem and feeling valued.ConclusionsUnfortunately, there is a dearth of studies exploring hard and operationalised PE outcomes on healthcare services and patients receiving healthcare. The PE process may be facilitated by dedicated finances to PE education and by ensuring sufficient stakeholder representativeness.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Patient engagement in the development and delivery of healthcare services: a systematic scoping review

Sagen

Smedslund

Simonsen³

et al. 2023

BMJ Open Qual

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(PECaD) Survey (Gennarelli & Goodman, 2013;Goodman et al, 2017;Thompson et al, 2020). Two articles described the creation of the Community Engagement in Research Index CERI (Khodyakov et al, 2011(Khodyakov et al, , 2013, and two others the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) (Abelson et al, 2016;Garratt et al, 2022). One study focused on the Patient and Public Involvement Assessment Survey (PPIAS) (Maccarthy et al, 2019).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine of the studies included a definition of CEnR (Abelson et al, 2016;Garratt et al, 2022;Goodman et al, 2017Goodman et al, , 2021Hamilton et al, 2018aHamilton et al, , 2018bHumphries et al, 2019;Khodyakov et al, 2013;Maccarthy et al, 2019). The other ten studies reviewed the concept but did not directly define the term (Bowen et al, 2022;Chung et al, 2021;Gennarelli & Goodman, 2013;Goodman et al, 2019Goodman et al, , 2022Hamilton et al, 2021;Humphries et al, 2014Humphries et al, , 2021Khodyakov et al, 2011;Thompson et al, 2020).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community Engagement in Research: An Updated Systematic Review of Quantitative Engagement Measurement Scales for Health Studies

Gordon,

Van De Griend,

Scharp

et al. 2023

Eval Health Prof

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though the interest in community engagement in research (CEnR) protocols has increased, studies reporting on the findings of tested CEnR engagement measurement scales for health studies are sparse. A systematic review was conducted from January 1 to March 1, 2023, to identify validated, quantitative CEnR engagement measurement tools for health studies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was employed. The rigor of scale development, testing, and implementation was explored, and a `best practices evaluation conducted. Themes on the readiness of scales for implementation in health research studies were narratively compiled. Nineteen studies met the search inclusion criteria—reporting on the development, testing, and implementation of seven CEnR engagement measurement scales for health studies. Scale implementation studies precipitated only two of the studies. None of the scales followed the rigorous process dictated in best practices; however, at this time, three scales have gone through the most robust testing processes. Advancement of the science of engagement measurement requires consensus on terminology, application of best practices for scale development and testing protocols, and consistency of reporting findings.

show abstract

“…PPEET was designed to compare PE across health care organisations and assess how PE is performed and experienced. The Norwegian version of PPEET, named Evalueringsverktøy for Brukermedvirkning (EBNOR) [ 29 ], was applied. EBNOR is a translated, back-translated, and culturally adapted patient-reported instrument.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…EBNOR is a translated, back-translated, and culturally adapted patient-reported instrument. The original as well as the translated version have been tested for content validity and reliability with good results [ 28 , 29 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organisation, influence, and impact of patient advisory boards in rehabilitation institutions—an explorative cross-sectional study

Sagen

Børøsund

Simonsen³

et al. 2022

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Patient participation is highlighted as an important facilitator for patient-centered care. Patient participation organised as patient advisory boards (PABs) is an integral part of health care institutions in Norway. More knowledge is needed on how PAB representatives experience patient engagement (PE) with regard to organisation, influence, and impact. The objective was to describe how PAB representatives experience their tasks, roles, and impact on decision-making processes and service delivery in the setting of rehabilitation institutions. Methods PAB representatives recruited from rehabilitation institutions completed the Norwegian version of the generic Public and Patient Engagement evaluation tool (Norwegian abbreviation EBNOR). EBNOR is tested for reliability and validity with good results and comprises 35 items within four main domains, policies and practices, participatory culture, collaboration, and influence and impact that provide responses about PE-levels. The domain items are scored from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” on a five-point scale, in addition to a don’t know category. Items in the domain “influence and impact” are scored from “never” to “all of the time” on a four-point scale. Categorical data were summarized using frequencies and percentages, and response categories were collapsed into three PE-levels: barrier, intermediate, and facilitating level. Free-text responses were analysed according to principles of manifest content analysis, summed up, and used to elaborate the results of the scores. Results Of the 150 contacted PAB representatives, 47 (32%) consented to participate. The results showed that approximately 75% agreed that the organisation as a whole was strengthened as a result of patient participation. Four out of five domains were scored indicating a facilitating level; policies and practices (53%), participatory culture (53%), collaboration and common purpose (37%), and final thoughts (63%). The modal score in the domain influence and impact was in the intermediate PE-level (44%). Of a total of 34 codes from free text analyses, barriers to PE were coded 26 times, and PE facilitators were coded 8 times. Conclusions The findings indicate that most PAB representatives are satisfied with how rehabilitation institutions organise their PAB, but they still experience their impact as limited.

show abstract

The Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool: forward-backwards translation and cultural adaption to Norwegian

Cited by 8 publications

References 18 publications

Patient engagement in the development and delivery of healthcare services: a systematic scoping review

Patient engagement in the development and delivery of healthcare services: a systematic scoping review

Community Engagement in Research: An Updated Systematic Review of Quantitative Engagement Measurement Scales for Health Studies

Organisation, influence, and impact of patient advisory boards in rehabilitation institutions—an explorative cross-sectional study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About