Use and reporting of experience-based codesign studies in the healthcare setting: a systematic review.
health services research
healthcare quality improvement
implementation science
quality improvement methodologies
Journal
BMJ quality & safety
ISSN: 2044-5423
Titre abrégé: BMJ Qual Saf
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101546984
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2020
01 2020
Historique:
received:
19
03
2019
revised:
18
08
2019
accepted:
10
09
2019
pubmed:
25
9
2019
medline:
26
11
2020
entrez:
25
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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. CRD42018105879.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31548278
pii: bmjqs-2019-009570
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009570
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
64-76Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.