Consumer Involvement in the Design and Development of Medication Safety Interventions or Services in Primary Care: A Scoping Review

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Expectations Pub Date : 2024-11-17 DOI:10.1111/hex.70092
Megan DelDot, Esther Lau, Nicole Rayner, Jean Spinks, Fiona Kelly, Lisa Nissen
{"title":"Consumer Involvement in the Design and Development of Medication Safety Interventions or Services in Primary Care: A Scoping Review","authors":"Megan DelDot,&nbsp;Esther Lau,&nbsp;Nicole Rayner,&nbsp;Jean Spinks,&nbsp;Fiona Kelly,&nbsp;Lisa Nissen","doi":"10.1111/hex.70092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Medication-related problems remain a significant burden despite the availability of various interventions and services in primary care. Involving health care consumers to design interventions or services across health disciplines is becoming more widely used as this type of engagement reportedly leads to more accessible, acceptable and sustainable health services and quality of life. We conducted a scoping review to examine when and how consumers have been involved in the design and development of medication safety interventions or services within the primary care.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We searched five key databases (MEDLINE (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), Embase (Elsevier) and Cochrane Library (Wiley)) for relevant articles published up to February 2024. Studies were included if they involved adult consumers (≥ 18 years), their families, carers or the wider community as stakeholders. This review only included studies where the aim was to improve safe and effective medication use, delivered exclusively in primary care. To examine consumer involvement approaches and methods we adapted a framework describing the stages of consumer involvement for the data extraction tool.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Overall, 15 studies were included (comprising 24 articles). Codesign, experience-based codesign, coproduction and participatory action research were commonly used approaches. Meetings, interviews, surveys/questionnaires were commonly used methods. Two studies reported consumer involvement across all stages of the research study, and only one study described the consumer experience of being involved in the research process. The impact of consumer involvement on the effectiveness of these services or interventions was mixed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The potential benefits of consumer involvement in the design and development of medication safety interventions or services may not have been fully maximised, given that genuine consumer involvement across all stages of the research study appears uncommon. More transparent and consistent reporting around the description of consumers involved, their experience of being involved and overall impact and quality of consumer participation is needed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>This scoping review was undertaken without consumers, patients, service users, caregivers or people with lived experience or members of the public due to resource limitations. This scoping review was undertaken and written by academics, who have undertaken codesign with consumers and stakeholders and also have personal lived experience of medication-related problems.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"27 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70092","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70092","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Medication-related problems remain a significant burden despite the availability of various interventions and services in primary care. Involving health care consumers to design interventions or services across health disciplines is becoming more widely used as this type of engagement reportedly leads to more accessible, acceptable and sustainable health services and quality of life. We conducted a scoping review to examine when and how consumers have been involved in the design and development of medication safety interventions or services within the primary care.

Methods

We searched five key databases (MEDLINE (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), Embase (Elsevier) and Cochrane Library (Wiley)) for relevant articles published up to February 2024. Studies were included if they involved adult consumers (≥ 18 years), their families, carers or the wider community as stakeholders. This review only included studies where the aim was to improve safe and effective medication use, delivered exclusively in primary care. To examine consumer involvement approaches and methods we adapted a framework describing the stages of consumer involvement for the data extraction tool.

Results

Overall, 15 studies were included (comprising 24 articles). Codesign, experience-based codesign, coproduction and participatory action research were commonly used approaches. Meetings, interviews, surveys/questionnaires were commonly used methods. Two studies reported consumer involvement across all stages of the research study, and only one study described the consumer experience of being involved in the research process. The impact of consumer involvement on the effectiveness of these services or interventions was mixed.

Conclusion

The potential benefits of consumer involvement in the design and development of medication safety interventions or services may not have been fully maximised, given that genuine consumer involvement across all stages of the research study appears uncommon. More transparent and consistent reporting around the description of consumers involved, their experience of being involved and overall impact and quality of consumer participation is needed.

Patient or Public Contribution

This scoping review was undertaken without consumers, patients, service users, caregivers or people with lived experience or members of the public due to resource limitations. This scoping review was undertaken and written by academics, who have undertaken codesign with consumers and stakeholders and also have personal lived experience of medication-related problems.

Abstract Image

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
消费者参与基层医疗机构用药安全干预或服务的设计与开发:范围综述》。
导言:尽管在初级保健中提供了各种干预措施和服务,但与用药相关的问题仍然是一个沉重的负担。据报道,让医疗保健消费者参与设计跨医疗学科的干预措施或服务正得到越来越广泛的应用,因为这种参与方式能带来更方便、更可接受、更可持续的医疗服务和生活质量。我们进行了一项范围综述,研究消费者何时以及如何参与初级医疗保健中用药安全干预措施或服务的设计和开发:我们检索了五个主要数据库(MEDLINE (EBSCOhost)、CINAHL (EBSCOhost)、PsycINFO (EBSCOhost)、Embase (Elsevier) 和 Cochrane Library (Wiley))中截至 2024 年 2 月发表的相关文章。如果研究涉及成年消费者(≥ 18 岁)、其家人、照顾者或更广泛的社区利益相关者,则将其纳入研究范围。本综述仅纳入旨在改善安全有效用药的研究,且仅在基层医疗机构开展。为了考察消费者参与的方式和方法,我们在数据提取工具中采用了一个描述消费者参与阶段的框架:共纳入 15 项研究(包括 24 篇文章)。共同设计、基于经验的共同设计、共同生产和参与式行动研究是常用的方法。会议、访谈、调查/问卷是常用的方法。有两项研究报告了消费者参与研究的所有阶段,只有一项研究描述了消费者参与研究过程的体验。消费者参与对这些服务或干预措施效果的影响好坏参半:消费者参与用药安全干预措施或服务的设计与开发的潜在益处可能没有得到充分发挥,因为消费者真正参与研究的所有阶段似乎并不常见。有必要对消费者参与的描述、参与体验以及消费者参与的整体影响和质量进行更加透明和一致的报告:患者或公众的贡献:由于资源所限,本范围界定研究在没有消费者、患者、服务使用 者、护理人员或有生活经验者或公众成员参与的情况下进行。本范围界定综述由学者进行并撰写,他们与消费者和利益相关者一起进行了代码设计,并拥有药物相关问题的亲身经历。
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
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.
期刊最新文献
Exploring Barriers and Facilitators to Patients and Members of the Public Contributing to Rapid Health Technology Assessments for NICE: A Qualitative Study. 'The Letter Says I May or May Not Be Eligible… It Is a Big Doubt and Frustrating:' A Qualitative Study on Barriers and Facilitators to Children's Oral Healthcare From the Perspective of Karen Refugee Parents in Victoria. Beyond the Queue: Exploring Waiting Practices in the Stories of Patients With Breast Cancer Consumer Involvement in the Design and Development of Medication Safety Interventions or Services in Primary Care: A Scoping Review Shared Decision-Making and Body Mass Index in Australian Antenatal Care: An Exploratory OPTION12 Evaluation
×
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