Abstract
Abstract
Aim
Patient engagement (PE) in pediatric health services research is challenging due to contextual factors such as busyness of parenting, work schedules, and diverse family structures. This scoping review seeks to comprehensively map current PE strategies with parents and families across existing published pediatric health research literature.
Methods
We followed Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and Levac et al., (2010) six-stage scoping review process. We conducted the search strategy in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Psychinfo databases. Data were extracted from included articles; evidence tables were developed and narrative synthesis was completed.
Results
Of 3925 retrieved records, seventeen articles were included in the review. Patient engagement primarily occurred through strategies such as advisory groups, meetings, focus groups and interviews. Strategies were used to engage patients at various levels, for different purposes (e.g., to inform, participate, consult, involve collaborate and/or lead). These strategies were also used at various stages of the research process. Navigating power differences, time and money were commonly reported challenges. Inconsistent terminology plagued (e.g., stakeholder engagement, consumer participation, patient and public involvement, participatory research) this body of literature and clarity is urgently needed.
Conclusions
This review offers insights into current PE strategies used in pediatric health services research and offers insight for researchers considering employing PE in the future.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Health Professions,Health (social science)
Reference39 articles.
1. Government of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research - Patient Engagement Framework.
http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48413.html
. Published January 2014.Accessed Dec 10, 2018.
2. Woolf SH, Zimmerman E, Haley A, Krist AH. Authentic engagement of patients and communities can transform research, practice, and policy. Health Aff. 2016;35(4):590–4.
https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1512
.
3. Domecq JP, Prutsky G. Tarig Elraiyah, et al. patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-89
.
4. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7(4):387–95.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0
.
5. Nass P, Levine S, Yancy, C. Methods for involving patients in topic generation for patient-centered comparative effectiveness research, an international perspective- white paper.
https://www.pcori.org/assets/Methods-for-Involving-Patients-in-Topic-Generation-for-Patient-Centered-Comparative-Effectiveness-Research-%E2%80%93-An-International-Perspective.pdf
. Published March 2012. Accessed Dec 10, 2018.
Cited by
50 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献