Show simple item record

dc.contributor.supervisorJones, Ray
dc.contributor.authorBaines, Rebecca
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Health: Medicine, Dentistry and Human Sciencesen_US
dc.date.accessioned2021-01-27T15:20:21Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier10456020en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/16823
dc.description.abstract

Background: Co-production is often suggested as an alternative approach to patient feedback design. However, critical exploration of how co-production may affect the perceived value and acceptability of a patient feedback tool is severely limited, particularly in the context of revalidation for practising psychiatrists.

Aim: This research sought to address four research questions: i) how are patients and the public involved in the design, delivery and evaluation of patient feedback tools for practising psychiatrists, if at all; ii) what are patient and psychiatrist perceptions, experiences and aspirations for patient feedback tools in revalidation; iii) how do these compare and iv) can co-production improve the perceived value and acceptability of a patient feedback tool for both patients and psychiatrists? Methods: Seven cycles of action research were conducted in co-production with a mental health patient-research partner.

Results: Patients are rarely involved in the design, delivery or evaluation of patient feedback tools for practising psychiatrists. Comparison of 152 online reviews demonstrates that patients frequently describe different psychiatric care domains with different terminology to that used in existing feedback tools. Inductive thematic analysis of focus groups and interviews with 77 patients and 29 psychiatrists identified a number of shared concerns and suggestions that often related to improving existing feedback design, content and processes. Finally, following a co-production and refinement workshop with 28 participants, 16 patients and psychiatrists stated that co-production had improved the perceived value and acceptability of the patient feedback tool. Benefits of co-production identified by participants included enhanced relevance, provision of more accessible information and increased sense of ownership.

Conclusion: Co-production can enhance the perceived value and acceptability of a patient feedback tool. However, the integration of co-produced knowledge ultimately remains at the organisations’ discretion. Research impacts include the national implementation of the feedback tool and international implementation of the co-produced response framework.

en_US
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherUniversity of Plymouth
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/*
dc.subjectCo-productionen_US
dc.subjectPatient feedbacken_US
dc.subjectAction researchen_US
dc.subjectMental healthen_US
dc.subjectPsychiatryen_US
dc.subjectQualitativeen_US
dc.subject.classificationPhDen_US
dc.titleCan the value and acceptability of a patient feedback tool for revalidating psychiatrists be improved for both patients and psychiatrists through its co-production? An action research approach.en_US
dc.typeThesis
plymouth.versionnon-publishableen_US
dc.rights.embargodate2022-01-27T15:20:21Z
dc.rights.embargoperiod12 monthsen_US
dc.type.qualificationDoctorateen_US
rioxxterms.versionNA
plymouth.orcid_id0000-0001-9857-1976en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States

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 
@mire NV