Assessing and reporting patient participation by means of patient preferences and experiences.


Journal

BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
29 Jul 2020
Historique:
received: 07 02 2020
accepted: 23 07 2020
entrez: 31 7 2020
pubmed: 31 7 2020
medline: 15 12 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Although patient participation is strongly associated with high quality of healthcare, valid means to measure and report a comprehensive notion of patient participation are scarce. The Patient Preferences for Patient Participation (4Ps) is a new healthcare practice and research tool, comprising patients' preferences as well as experiences. The 4Ps employs 12 items for the patient to conceptualise patient participation. The aim of this paper is to describe how the two perspectives of patient participation, namely preferences and experiences, can be combined to visualise and report preference-based patient participation. With four response alternatives in each section, the 4Ps offers sixteen possible combinations of degree of match per item. Theoretical and clinical principles fostered a tentative order of six ranks and three levels of preference-based patient participation. To test the standard, statistical analyses for ordinal data were performed, using data from a randomised controlled trial evaluating an intervention aiming to improve patient participation. Further, structures for visualising the preference-based patient participation of individuals and groups were suggested. Data from the 4Ps demonstrated the individuals' preference-based patient participation, indicating either a match or a mismatch for each item. Mismatches represented either the experience of participation surpassing the patient's preferences, or the patient's preferences for patient participation not being established. At group level, the suggested approach for visualising and reporting the 4Ps demonstrated that the intervention group had a significantly higher proportion of sufficient preference-based patient participation for certain items than the control group. These results had not been identified earlier, when using the preferences and experiences of patient participation as separate measures. Ways to easily acquaint stakeholders with patients' preferences for patient participation are needed, in order for healthcare staff to better use resources to match the basic requirements of individuals and groups. While the 4Ps can guide professionals to patient participation as framed in legislations, concept analyses and by patients, a visualisation of the results is needed to capture preference-based patient participation. The proposed route to representing degree of match in preferences and experiences may also be relevant to other dimensions of quality of healthcare.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Although patient participation is strongly associated with high quality of healthcare, valid means to measure and report a comprehensive notion of patient participation are scarce. The Patient Preferences for Patient Participation (4Ps) is a new healthcare practice and research tool, comprising patients' preferences as well as experiences. The 4Ps employs 12 items for the patient to conceptualise patient participation. The aim of this paper is to describe how the two perspectives of patient participation, namely preferences and experiences, can be combined to visualise and report preference-based patient participation.
METHODS METHODS
With four response alternatives in each section, the 4Ps offers sixteen possible combinations of degree of match per item. Theoretical and clinical principles fostered a tentative order of six ranks and three levels of preference-based patient participation. To test the standard, statistical analyses for ordinal data were performed, using data from a randomised controlled trial evaluating an intervention aiming to improve patient participation. Further, structures for visualising the preference-based patient participation of individuals and groups were suggested.
RESULTS RESULTS
Data from the 4Ps demonstrated the individuals' preference-based patient participation, indicating either a match or a mismatch for each item. Mismatches represented either the experience of participation surpassing the patient's preferences, or the patient's preferences for patient participation not being established. At group level, the suggested approach for visualising and reporting the 4Ps demonstrated that the intervention group had a significantly higher proportion of sufficient preference-based patient participation for certain items than the control group. These results had not been identified earlier, when using the preferences and experiences of patient participation as separate measures.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Ways to easily acquaint stakeholders with patients' preferences for patient participation are needed, in order for healthcare staff to better use resources to match the basic requirements of individuals and groups. While the 4Ps can guide professionals to patient participation as framed in legislations, concept analyses and by patients, a visualisation of the results is needed to capture preference-based patient participation. The proposed route to representing degree of match in preferences and experiences may also be relevant to other dimensions of quality of healthcare.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32727451
doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05574-y
pii: 10.1186/s12913-020-05574-y
pmc: PMC7391651
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

702

Références

Health Expect. 2015 Dec;18(6):2522-35
pubmed: 24938672
Nurse Educ Pract. 2019 Mar;36:82-84
pubmed: 30889468
Patient Educ Couns. 2019 Jan;102(1):3-11
pubmed: 30201221
Nurs Ethics. 2006 Sep;13(5):503-14
pubmed: 16961114
J Adv Nurs. 2019 Jan;75(1):175-186
pubmed: 30375028
J Adv Nurs. 1996 Sep;24(3):561-71
pubmed: 8876417
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jan 7;17(1):16
pubmed: 28061856
Med Care. 2003 Jan;41(1 Suppl):I30-8
pubmed: 12544814
J Clin Nurs. 2011 Jul;20(13-14):2014-22
pubmed: 21366738
J Clin Nurs. 2002 Sep;11(5):681-7
pubmed: 12201896
Health Sci Rep. 2018 Nov 06;2(1):e101
pubmed: 30697595
Health Expect. 2019 Dec;22(6):1285-1293
pubmed: 31560830
BMC Nurs. 2016 Aug 03;15:47
pubmed: 27493586
Int J Nurs Terminol Classif. 2010 Jan-Mar;21(1):21-32
pubmed: 20132355
BMC Palliat Care. 2015 Nov 02;14:54
pubmed: 26525048
Health Syst Transit. 2012;14(5):1-159
pubmed: 22894859
Can J Nurs Res. 1997 Fall;29(3):21-43
pubmed: 9505581
Health Expect. 2018 Apr;21(2):429-440
pubmed: 29151269
Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2004 Sep;3(3):239-46
pubmed: 15350234
Patient Educ Couns. 2018 Jun;101(6):1137-1142
pubmed: 29290329
Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2006 Mar;5(1):45-53
pubmed: 16014340
Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2019 Mar;18(3):185-193
pubmed: 30277807
Patient Educ Couns. 2018 Aug;101(8):1337-1350
pubmed: 29551564
J Eval Clin Pract. 2019 Dec;25(6):1070-1073
pubmed: 30916440
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Feb;25(2):110-7
pubmed: 26415751
Health Expect. 2008 Sep;11(3):263-71
pubmed: 18816322
Patient Educ Couns. 2018 Jul;101(7):1302-1305
pubmed: 29602511
Nurs Ethics. 2014 Mar;21(2):129-47
pubmed: 23812560
Sogo Kango. 1974 Spring;9(1):92-8
pubmed: 4494181
Bull World Health Organ. 2009 Apr;87(4):271-8
pubmed: 19551235
Nurs Forum. 2008 Jan-Mar;43(1):2-11
pubmed: 18269439
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Dec;99(12):1923-1939
pubmed: 27450481
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018 Dec 31;13:83-90
pubmed: 30643393
Implement Sci. 2006 Feb 22;1:2
pubmed: 16722567

Auteurs

Ann Catrine Eldh (AC)

Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, SE-581 83, Linköping, Sweden. ann.catrine.eldh@liu.se.
Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Box 564, SE751 22, Uppsala, Sweden. ann.catrine.eldh@liu.se.

Marie Holmefur (M)

School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, S701 82, Örebro, Sweden.

Kristina Luhr (K)

School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, S701 82, Örebro, Sweden.

Marika Wenemark (M)

Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, SE-581 83, Linköping, Sweden.
Unit of Public Health and Statistics, Region Östergötland, S581 85, Linköping, Sweden.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH