Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBaines, Rebecca
dc.contributor.authorDonovan, J
dc.contributor.authorRegan de Bere, Sam
dc.contributor.authorArcher, Julian
dc.contributor.authorJones, Ray
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-27T16:14:47Z
dc.date.issued2018-11-26
dc.identifier.issn1355-8196
dc.identifier.issn1758-1060
dc.identifier.urihttp://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.extent130-142
dc.format.mediumPrint-Electronic
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSAGE Publications
dc.subjecthealth policy
dc.subjectmental health
dc.subjectpatient and public involvement
dc.subjectpatient experience
dc.subjectpsychiatry
dc.subjectsystematic review
dc.titlePatient 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.typejournal-article
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.typeSystematic Review
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000464465600009&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008
plymouth.issue2
plymouth.volume24
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalJournal of Health Services Research and Policy
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/1355819618811866
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.placeEngland
dcterms.dateAccepted2018-11-26
dc.rights.embargodate2019-2-19
dc.identifier.eissn1758-1060
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot known
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1177/1355819618811866
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2018-11-26
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV