Patient and public involvement in the design, administration and evaluation of patient feedback tools, an example in psychiatry: a systematic review and critical interpretative synthesis.
dc.contributor.author | Baines, Rebecca | |
dc.contributor.author | Donovan, J | |
dc.contributor.author | Regan de Bere, Sam | |
dc.contributor.author | Archer, Julian | |
dc.contributor.author | Jones, Ray | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-11-27T16:14:47Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2018-11-26 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1355-8196 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1758-1060 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/12915 | |
dc.description.abstract |
<jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p> Patient feedback is considered integral to healthcare design, delivery and reform. However, while there is a strong policy commitment to evidencing patient and public involvement (PPI) in the design of patient feedback tools, it remains unclear whether this happens in practice. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p> A systematic review using thematic analysis and critical interpretative synthesis of peer-reviewed and grey literature published between 2007 and 2017 exploring the presence of PPI in the design, administration and evaluation of patient feedback tools for practising psychiatrists. The research process was carried out in collaboration with a volunteer mental health patient research partner. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p> Fourteen articles (10 peer-reviewed, four grey literature) discussing the development of nine patient feedback tools were included. Six of the nine tools reviewed were designed from a professional perspective only. Tool content and its categorization primarily remained at the professional’s discretion. Patient participation rates, presence of missing data and psychometric validation were used to determine validity and patient acceptability. In most instances, patients remained passive recipients with limited opportunity to actively influence change at any stage. No article reviewed reported PPI in all aspects of tool design, administration or evaluation. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p> The majority of patient feedback tools are designed, administered and evaluated from the professional perspective only. Existing tools appear to assume that: professional and patient agendas are synonymous; psychometric validation is indicative of patient acceptability; and psychiatric patients do not have the capacity or desire to be involved. Future patient feedback tools should be co-produced from the outset to ensure they are valued by all those involved. A reconsideration of the purpose of patient feedback, and what constitutes valid patient feedback, is also required. </jats:p></jats:sec> | |
dc.format.extent | 130-142 | |
dc.format.medium | Print-Electronic | |
dc.language | en | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.publisher | SAGE Publications | |
dc.subject | health policy | |
dc.subject | mental health | |
dc.subject | patient and public involvement | |
dc.subject | patient experience | |
dc.subject | psychiatry | |
dc.subject | systematic review | |
dc.title | Patient and public involvement in the design, administration and evaluation of patient feedback tools, an example in psychiatry: a systematic review and critical interpretative synthesis. | |
dc.type | journal-article | |
dc.type | Journal Article | |
dc.type | Systematic Review | |
plymouth.author-url | https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000464465600009&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008 | |
plymouth.issue | 2 | |
plymouth.volume | 24 | |
plymouth.publication-status | Published | |
plymouth.journal | Journal of Health Services Research and Policy | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1177/1355819618811866 | |
plymouth.organisational-group | /Plymouth | |
plymouth.organisational-group | /Plymouth/Faculty of Health | |
plymouth.organisational-group | /Plymouth/Faculty of Health/Peninsula Medical School | |
plymouth.organisational-group | /Plymouth/Faculty of Health/School of Nursing and Midwifery | |
plymouth.organisational-group | /Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA | |
plymouth.organisational-group | /Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA03 Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy | |
plymouth.organisational-group | /Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA23 Education | |
plymouth.organisational-group | /Plymouth/Research Groups | |
plymouth.organisational-group | /Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Health and Community | |
plymouth.organisational-group | /Plymouth/Users by role | |
plymouth.organisational-group | /Plymouth/Users by role/Academics | |
dc.publisher.place | England | |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2018-11-26 | |
dc.rights.embargodate | 2019-2-19 | |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1758-1060 | |
dc.rights.embargoperiod | Not known | |
rioxxterms.versionofrecord | 10.1177/1355819618811866 | |
rioxxterms.licenseref.uri | http://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved | |
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate | 2018-11-26 | |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review |