Meaningful consumer involvement in cancer care: a systematic review on co-design methods and processes.

IF 3.4 Q2 ONCOLOGY JNCI Cancer Spectrum Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1093/jncics/pkae048
Nicole Kiss, Hannah Jongebloed, Brenton Baguley, Skye Marshall, Victoria M White, Patricia M Livingston, Kathy Bell, Leonie Young, Sabe Sabesan, Dayna Swiatek, Anna Boltong, Joanne M Britto, Anna Ugalde
{"title":"Meaningful consumer involvement in cancer care: a systematic review on co-design methods and processes.","authors":"Nicole Kiss, Hannah Jongebloed, Brenton Baguley, Skye Marshall, Victoria M White, Patricia M Livingston, Kathy Bell, Leonie Young, Sabe Sabesan, Dayna Swiatek, Anna Boltong, Joanne M Britto, Anna Ugalde","doi":"10.1093/jncics/pkae048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Although the benefits of consumer involvement in research and health care initiatives are known, there is a need to optimize this for all people with cancer. This systematic review aimed to synthesize and evaluate the application of co-design in the oncology literature and develop recommendations to guide the application of optimal co-design processes and reporting in oncology research, practice, and policy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of co-design studies in adults with cancer was conducted, searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases and included studies focused on 2 concepts, co-design and oncology.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 5652 titles and abstracts were screened, resulting in 66 eligible publications reporting on 51 unique studies. Four frameworks were applied to describe the co-design initiatives. Most co-design initiatives were designed for use in an outpatient setting (n = 38; 74%) and were predominantly digital resources (n = 14; 27%) or apps (n = 12; 23%). Most studies (n = 25; 49%) used a co-production approach to consumer engagement. Although some studies presented strong co-design methodology, most (n = 36; 70%) did not report the co-design approach, and 14% used no framework. Reporting was poor for the participant level of involvement, the frequency, and time commitment of co-design sessions. Consumer participation level was predominantly collaborate (n = 25; 49%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There are opportunities to improve the application of co-design in oncology research. This review has generated recommendations to guide 1) methodology and frameworks, 2) recruitment and engagement of co-design participants, and 3) evaluation of the co-design process. These recommendations can help drive appropriate, meaningful, and equitable co-design, leading to better cancer research and care.</p>","PeriodicalId":14681,"journal":{"name":"JNCI Cancer Spectrum","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11240760/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JNCI Cancer Spectrum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pkae048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Although the benefits of consumer involvement in research and health care initiatives are known, there is a need to optimize this for all people with cancer. This systematic review aimed to synthesize and evaluate the application of co-design in the oncology literature and develop recommendations to guide the application of optimal co-design processes and reporting in oncology research, practice, and policy.

Methods: A systematic review of co-design studies in adults with cancer was conducted, searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases and included studies focused on 2 concepts, co-design and oncology.

Results: A total of 5652 titles and abstracts were screened, resulting in 66 eligible publications reporting on 51 unique studies. Four frameworks were applied to describe the co-design initiatives. Most co-design initiatives were designed for use in an outpatient setting (n = 38; 74%) and were predominantly digital resources (n = 14; 27%) or apps (n = 12; 23%). Most studies (n = 25; 49%) used a co-production approach to consumer engagement. Although some studies presented strong co-design methodology, most (n = 36; 70%) did not report the co-design approach, and 14% used no framework. Reporting was poor for the participant level of involvement, the frequency, and time commitment of co-design sessions. Consumer participation level was predominantly collaborate (n = 25; 49%).

Conclusions: There are opportunities to improve the application of co-design in oncology research. This review has generated recommendations to guide 1) methodology and frameworks, 2) recruitment and engagement of co-design participants, and 3) evaluation of the co-design process. These recommendations can help drive appropriate, meaningful, and equitable co-design, leading to better cancer research and care.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有意义的消费者参与癌症护理:关于共同设计方法和流程的系统性综述。
目的:尽管消费者参与研究和医疗保健活动的益处众所周知,但仍有必要为所有癌症患者优化这种参与。本系统综述旨在综合和评估共同设计在肿瘤学文献中的应用,并提出建议,以指导在肿瘤学研究、实践和政策中应用最佳共同设计流程和报告:方法:通过检索MEDLINE、CINAHL、Embase和PsycINFO数据库,对成人癌症患者的协同设计研究进行了系统综述,纳入的研究主要集中在两个概念上,即协同设计和肿瘤学:结果:共筛选了 5652 篇标题和摘要,结果有 66 篇符合条件的出版物报告了 51 项独特的研究。共采用了四个框架来描述协同设计计划。大多数共同设计计划是为门诊病人设计的(n = 38;74%),主要是数字资源(n = 14;27%)或应用程序(n = 12;23%)。大多数研究(n = 25;49%)采用共同生产的方式让消费者参与。尽管有些研究介绍了强有力的共同设计方法,但大多数研究(n = 36; 70%)没有报告共同设计方法,14%的研究没有使用任何框架。对参与者的参与程度、共同设计会议的频率和时间承诺的报告较少。消费者的参与程度以合作为主(25 人;49%):结论:共同设计在肿瘤学研究中的应用还有改进的余地。本综述提出了以下方面的指导建议:i)方法和框架;ii)共同设计参与者的招募和参与;iii)共同设计过程的评估。这些建议有助于推动适当、有意义和公平的协同设计,从而改善癌症研究和治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
JNCI Cancer Spectrum Medicine-Oncology
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
80
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Gut Microbiome in Colorectal Cancer: Metagenomics from Bench to Bedside. Functional outcomes after primary vs delayed robot-assisted radical prostatectomy following active surveillance. Do trial benefits predict real-world gains in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer. Multi-gene risk-score for prediction of clinical outcomes in treatment-naïve metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer. The mediating role of physical activity on cognitive disparities in cancer survivors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1