综合医疗和社会护理中的患者报告结果:范围综述。

JRSM Open Pub Date : 2024-03-24 eCollection Date: 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1177/20542704241232866
Sarah E Hughes, Olalekan L Aiyegbusi, Christel McMullan, Grace M Turner, Nicola Anderson, Samantha Cruz Rivera, Philip Collis, Jon Glasby, Daniel Lasserson, Melanie Calvert
{"title":"综合医疗和社会护理中的患者报告结果:范围综述。","authors":"Sarah E Hughes, Olalekan L Aiyegbusi, Christel McMullan, Grace M Turner, Nicola Anderson, Samantha Cruz Rivera, Philip Collis, Jon Glasby, Daniel Lasserson, Melanie Calvert","doi":"10.1177/20542704241232866","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have potential to support integrated health and social care research and practice; however, evidence of their utilisation has not been synthesised.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify PRO measures utilised in integrated care and adult social care research and practice and to chart the evidence of implementation factors influencing their uptake.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Scoping review of peer-reviewed literature.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Six databases (01 January 2010 to 19 May 2023).</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Articles reporting PRO use with adults (18+ years) in integrated care or social care settings.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>We screened articles against pre-specified eligibility criteria; 36 studies (23%) were extracted in duplicate for verification. We summarised the data using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 159 articles reporting on 216 PRO measures deployed in a social care or integrated care setting. Most articles used PRO measures as research tools. Eight (5.0%) articles used PRO measures as an intervention. Articles focused on community-dwelling participants (35.8%) or long-term care home residents (23.9%), with three articles (1.9%) focussing on integrated care settings. Stakeholders viewed PROs as feasible and acceptable, with benefits for care planning, health and wellbeing monitoring as well as quality assurance. Patient-reported outcome measure selection, administration and PRO data management were perceived implementation barriers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This scoping review showed increasing utilisation of PROs in adult social care and integrated care. Further research is needed to optimise PROs for care planning, design effective training resources and develop policies and service delivery models that prioritise secure, ethical management of PRO data.</p>","PeriodicalId":17674,"journal":{"name":"JRSM Open","volume":"15 3","pages":"20542704241232866"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10962043/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient-reported outcomes in integrated health and social care: A scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah E Hughes, Olalekan L Aiyegbusi, Christel McMullan, Grace M Turner, Nicola Anderson, Samantha Cruz Rivera, Philip Collis, Jon Glasby, Daniel Lasserson, Melanie Calvert\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20542704241232866\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have potential to support integrated health and social care research and practice; however, evidence of their utilisation has not been synthesised.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify PRO measures utilised in integrated care and adult social care research and practice and to chart the evidence of implementation factors influencing their uptake.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Scoping review of peer-reviewed literature.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Six databases (01 January 2010 to 19 May 2023).</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Articles reporting PRO use with adults (18+ years) in integrated care or social care settings.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>We screened articles against pre-specified eligibility criteria; 36 studies (23%) were extracted in duplicate for verification. We summarised the data using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 159 articles reporting on 216 PRO measures deployed in a social care or integrated care setting. Most articles used PRO measures as research tools. Eight (5.0%) articles used PRO measures as an intervention. Articles focused on community-dwelling participants (35.8%) or long-term care home residents (23.9%), with three articles (1.9%) focussing on integrated care settings. Stakeholders viewed PROs as feasible and acceptable, with benefits for care planning, health and wellbeing monitoring as well as quality assurance. Patient-reported outcome measure selection, administration and PRO data management were perceived implementation barriers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This scoping review showed increasing utilisation of PROs in adult social care and integrated care. Further research is needed to optimise PROs for care planning, design effective training resources and develop policies and service delivery models that prioritise secure, ethical management of PRO data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17674,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JRSM Open\",\"volume\":\"15 3\",\"pages\":\"20542704241232866\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10962043/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JRSM Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20542704241232866\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JRSM Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20542704241232866","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:患者报告结果(PROs)具有支持综合健康和社会护理研究与实践的潜力;然而,有关其使用情况的证据尚未得到综合:确定在综合护理和成人社会护理研究与实践中使用的患者报告结果测量方法,并绘制影响其使用的实施因素的证据图:数据来源:六个数据库(2010 年 1 月 1 日至 2010 年 12 月 31 日):六个数据库(2010 年 1 月 1 日至 2023 年 5 月 19 日):研究选择:报道在综合护理或社会护理环境中对成人(18 岁以上)使用 PRO 的文章:我们根据预先规定的资格标准对文章进行了筛选;重复提取了 36 项研究(23%)进行验证。我们使用主题分析和描述性统计对数据进行了总结:我们确定了 159 篇文章,报告了在社会护理或综合护理环境中采用的 216 项 PRO 测量。大多数文章将PRO测量作为研究工具。8篇文章(5.0%)将PRO测量作为一种干预措施。文章主要针对社区居民(35.8%)或长期护理院居民(23.9%),有三篇文章(1.9%)主要针对综合护理环境。利益相关者认为患者报告结果是可行和可接受的,对护理规划、健康和福利监测以及质量保证都有好处。患者报告结果测量的选择、管理和PRO数据管理是实施过程中遇到的障碍:此次范围界定审查表明,PROs 在成人社会护理和综合护理中的应用日益广泛。需要进一步开展研究,以优化护理规划中的PRO,设计有效的培训资源,并制定政策和服务提供模式,优先考虑PRO数据的安全和道德管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Patient-reported outcomes in integrated health and social care: A scoping review.

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have potential to support integrated health and social care research and practice; however, evidence of their utilisation has not been synthesised.

Objective: To identify PRO measures utilised in integrated care and adult social care research and practice and to chart the evidence of implementation factors influencing their uptake.

Design: Scoping review of peer-reviewed literature.

Data sources: Six databases (01 January 2010 to 19 May 2023).

Study selection: Articles reporting PRO use with adults (18+ years) in integrated care or social care settings.

Review methods: We screened articles against pre-specified eligibility criteria; 36 studies (23%) were extracted in duplicate for verification. We summarised the data using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics.

Results: We identified 159 articles reporting on 216 PRO measures deployed in a social care or integrated care setting. Most articles used PRO measures as research tools. Eight (5.0%) articles used PRO measures as an intervention. Articles focused on community-dwelling participants (35.8%) or long-term care home residents (23.9%), with three articles (1.9%) focussing on integrated care settings. Stakeholders viewed PROs as feasible and acceptable, with benefits for care planning, health and wellbeing monitoring as well as quality assurance. Patient-reported outcome measure selection, administration and PRO data management were perceived implementation barriers.

Conclusion: This scoping review showed increasing utilisation of PROs in adult social care and integrated care. Further research is needed to optimise PROs for care planning, design effective training resources and develop policies and service delivery models that prioritise secure, ethical management of PRO data.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: JRSM Open is a peer reviewed online-only journal that follows the open-access publishing model. It is a companion journal to the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. The journal publishes research papers, research letters, clinical and methodological reviews, and case reports. Our aim is to inform practice and policy making in clinical medicine. The journal has an international and multispecialty readership that includes primary care and public health professionals.
期刊最新文献
Providing personalised care for people with tuberculosis: an evaluation of enhanced case management in a UK TB Network 2013 to 2021. Redeployment experiences of healthcare workers in the UK during COVID-19: a cross-sectional analysis from the nationwide UK-REACH study. Surgical reconstruction for spasticity and contracture: An underutilised rehabilitative strategy of adult stroke. Long COVID symptoms and demographic associations: A retrospective case series study using healthcare application data. Racial microaggressions within the UK Healthcare System: a narrative review.
×
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