What Are the Best Practices for Co-Creating Patient-Facing Educational Materials? A Scoping Review of the Literature.
What Are the Best Practices for Co-Creating Patient-Facing Educational Materials? A Scoping Review of the Literature.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3390/healthcare11192615
复制
发表时间：
2023-09-23
期刊：
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Dwyer, Andrew A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
McDonald, Isabella R.;Blocker, Elizabeth S.;Weyman, Elizabeth A.;Smith, Neil;Dwyer, Andrew A.
关键词：
共同创建面向患者的教育材料（PEM）可以通过响应患者的优先事项和未满足的需求来加强以人为本的护理。关于共同创造的“最佳做法”的数据很少。我们遵循Arksey和O 'Malley框架对九个数据库（MEDLINE、PubMed、EMBASE、CINAHL、PsycInfo、Web of Science、科克伦图书馆、乔安娜·布里格斯研究所、TRIP-April，2022年）进行系统的文献检索，以识别以英语发表的关于PEM共同创造的实证研究，以提取“最佳实践”。在对文章进行独立的双重审查后，将数据整理成表格，并采用主题分析来综合“最佳实践”，这些实践由一名在共同创建PEM方面有经验的患者进行了验证。考虑到研究异质性，未评估偏倚。在检索到的6998篇文章中，44篇被纳入数据提取/合成。研究采用了涵盖一系列健康状况/人群的异质方法。只有5/45（11%）的研究定义了共同创造，14（32%）使用了指导框架，18（41%）使用了经过验证的评估工具。确定了六个“最佳实践”：（1）开始与文献综述，（2）利用框架，告知过程，（3）从一开始就涉及临床和患者专家，（4）参与不同的观点，（5）确保患者有最终的决定，（6）采用经验证的评估工具。本次范围界定审查强调需要明确的定义和经验证的评价措施，以指导和评估共创进程。确定的“最佳实践”与不同的患者人群和健康问题有关，以加强以人为本的护理。
Co-creating patient-facing educational materials (PEMs) can enhance person-centered care by responding to patient priorities and unmet needs. Little data exist on ‘best practices’ for co-creation. We followed the Arksey and O’Malley framework to conduct a systematic literature search of nine databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute, TRIP—April, 2022) to identify empirical studies published in English on PEM co-creation to distill ‘best practices’. Following an independent dual review of articles, data were collated into tables, and thematic analysis was employed to synthesize ‘best practices’ that were validated by a patient experienced in co-creating PEMs. Bias was not assessed, given the study heterogeneity. Of 6998 retrieved articles, 44 were included for data extraction/synthesis. Studies utilized heterogeneous methods spanning a range of health conditions/populations. Only 5/45 (11%) studies defined co-creation, 14 (32%) used a guiding framework, and 18 (41%) used validated evaluation tools. Six ‘best practices’ were identified: (1) begin with a review of the literature, (2) utilize a framework to inform the process, (3) involve clinical and patient experts from the beginning, (4) engage diverse perspectives, (5) ensure patients have the final decision, and (6) employ validated evaluation tools. This scoping review highlights the need for clear definitions and validated evaluation measures to guide and assess the co-creation process. Identified ‘best practices’ are relevant for use with diverse patient populations and health issues to enhance person-centered care.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
Sussman AL;Montoya C;Werder O;Davis S;Wallerstein N;Kong AS
通讯作者：
Kong AS
DOI：
10.1080/10447318.2021.1949854
发表时间：
2021-07-22
影响因子：
4.7
作者：
Al Mahmud, Abdullah;Long, Katrina M.;Lim, Michelle H.
通讯作者：
Lim, Michelle H.
DOI：
10.1007/s00520-018-4276-0
发表时间：
2018-12
期刊：
Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer
影响因子：
--
作者：
McMullen C;Nielsen M;Firemark A;Price PM;Nakatani D;Tuthill J;McMyn R;Odisho A;Meyers M;Shibata D;Gilbert S
通讯作者：
Gilbert S
影响因子：
--
作者：
Spijk-de Jonge MJ;Manders SHM;Huis AMP;Elwyn G;van de Laar MAFJ;van Riel PLCM;Hulscher MEJL
通讯作者：
Hulscher MEJL
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Ajayi, Ikeoluwapo O.;Oladepo, Oladimeji;Kale, Oladele
通讯作者：
Kale, Oladele