医疗环境中基于经验的代码设计研究的使用和报告:系统综述

T. Green, A. Bonner, L. Teleni, Natalie K. Bradford, L. Purtell, C. Douglas, P. Yates, M. MacAndrew, Hai Yen Dao, R. Chan
{"title":"医疗环境中基于经验的代码设计研究的使用和报告:系统综述","authors":"T. Green, A. Bonner, L. Teleni, Natalie K. Bradford, L. Purtell, C. Douglas, P. Yates, M. MacAndrew, Hai Yen Dao, R. Chan","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Experience-based codesign (EBCD) is an approach to health service design that engages patients and healthcare staff in partnership to develop and improve health services or pathways of care. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the use (structure, process and outcomes) and reporting of EBCD in health service improvement activities. Methods Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library) were searched to identify peer-reviewed articles published from database inception to August 2018. Search terms identified peer-reviewed English language qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies that underwent independent screening by two authors. Full texts were independently reviewed by two reviewers and data were independently extracted by one reviewer before being checked by a second reviewer. Adherence to the 10 activities embedded within the eight-stage EBCD framework was calculated for each study. Results We identified 20 studies predominantly from the UK and in acute mental health or cancer services. EBCD fidelity ranged from 40% to 100% with only three studies satisfying 100% fidelity. Conclusion EBCD is used predominantly for quality improvement, but has potential to be used for intervention design projects. There is variation in the use of EBCD, with many studies eliminating or modifying some EBCD stages. Moreover, there is no consistency in reporting. In order to evaluate the effect of modifying EBCD or levels of EBCD fidelity, the outcomes of each EBCD phase (ie, touchpoints and improvement activities) should be reported in a consistent manner. Trial registration number CRD42018105879.","PeriodicalId":49653,"journal":{"name":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","volume":"29 1","pages":"64 - 76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009570","citationCount":"65","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use and reporting of experience-based codesign studies in the healthcare setting: a systematic review\",\"authors\":\"T. Green, A. Bonner, L. Teleni, Natalie K. Bradford, L. Purtell, C. Douglas, P. Yates, M. MacAndrew, Hai Yen Dao, R. Chan\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009570\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Experience-based codesign (EBCD) is an approach to health service design that engages patients and healthcare staff in partnership to develop and improve health services or pathways of care. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the use (structure, process and outcomes) and reporting of EBCD in health service improvement activities. Methods Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library) were searched to identify peer-reviewed articles published from database inception to August 2018. Search terms identified peer-reviewed English language qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies that underwent independent screening by two authors. Full texts were independently reviewed by two reviewers and data were independently extracted by one reviewer before being checked by a second reviewer. Adherence to the 10 activities embedded within the eight-stage EBCD framework was calculated for each study. Results We identified 20 studies predominantly from the UK and in acute mental health or cancer services. EBCD fidelity ranged from 40% to 100% with only three studies satisfying 100% fidelity. Conclusion EBCD is used predominantly for quality improvement, but has potential to be used for intervention design projects. There is variation in the use of EBCD, with many studies eliminating or modifying some EBCD stages. Moreover, there is no consistency in reporting. In order to evaluate the effect of modifying EBCD or levels of EBCD fidelity, the outcomes of each EBCD phase (ie, touchpoints and improvement activities) should be reported in a consistent manner. Trial registration number CRD42018105879.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49653,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality & Safety in Health Care\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"64 - 76\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009570\",\"citationCount\":\"65\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality & Safety in Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009570\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009570","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 65

摘要

背景基于经验的代码设计(EBCD)是一种医疗服务设计方法,它让患者和医护人员合作开发和改进医疗服务或护理途径。这项系统审查的目的是检查EBCD在卫生服务改进活动中的使用(结构、过程和结果)和报告。方法检索电子数据库(MEDLINE、CINAHL、PsycINFO和The Cochrane Library),以确定从数据库成立到2018年8月发表的同行评审文章。搜索词确定了同行评审的英语定性、定量和混合方法研究,这些研究由两位作者进行了独立筛选。全文由两名评审员独立评审,数据由一名评审员单独提取,然后由第二名评审员检查。每项研究都计算了对八阶段EBCD框架内10项活动的遵守情况。结果我们确定了20项主要来自英国和急性精神健康或癌症服务的研究。EBCD的保真度在40%到100%之间,只有三项研究满足100%的保真度。结论EBCD主要用于质量改进,但有潜力用于干预设计项目。EBCD的使用存在差异,许多研究消除或修改了一些EBCD阶段。此外,报告也不一致。为了评估修改EBCD或EBCD保真度水平的效果,应以一致的方式报告每个EBCD阶段的结果(即接触点和改进活动)。试验注册号CRD42018105879。
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
Use and reporting of experience-based codesign studies in the healthcare setting: a systematic review
Background Experience-based codesign (EBCD) is an approach to health service design that engages patients and healthcare staff in partnership to develop and improve health services or pathways of care. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the use (structure, process and outcomes) and reporting of EBCD in health service improvement activities. Methods Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library) were searched to identify peer-reviewed articles published from database inception to August 2018. Search terms identified peer-reviewed English language qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies that underwent independent screening by two authors. Full texts were independently reviewed by two reviewers and data were independently extracted by one reviewer before being checked by a second reviewer. Adherence to the 10 activities embedded within the eight-stage EBCD framework was calculated for each study. Results We identified 20 studies predominantly from the UK and in acute mental health or cancer services. EBCD fidelity ranged from 40% to 100% with only three studies satisfying 100% fidelity. Conclusion EBCD is used predominantly for quality improvement, but has potential to be used for intervention design projects. There is variation in the use of EBCD, with many studies eliminating or modifying some EBCD stages. Moreover, there is no consistency in reporting. In order to evaluate the effect of modifying EBCD or levels of EBCD fidelity, the outcomes of each EBCD phase (ie, touchpoints and improvement activities) should be reported in a consistent manner. Trial registration number CRD42018105879.
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
Quality & Safety in Health Care
Quality & Safety in Health Care 医学-卫生保健
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Accuracy of telephone triage for predicting adverse outcomes in suspected COVID-19: an observational cohort study. Quality framework for remote antenatal care: qualitative study with women, healthcare professionals and system-level stakeholders. Addressing social determinants of health in primary care: a quasi-experimental study using unannounced standardised patients to evaluate the impact of audit/feedback on physicians' rates of identifying and responding to social needs. Reporting on implementation trials with null findings: the need for concurrent process evaluation reporting. Antibiotic documentation: death by a thousand clicks.
×
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