4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research: a scoping review of contemporary practice

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Over the past decades, there has been a growing international interest in user involvement in healthcare research. However, evidence on the management and impact of patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research remains limited.

          Objective

          The aim was to explore and delineate the current state, practice, and impact of patient and public involvement in healthcare research across different areas of healthcare and patient populations in the Nordic countries.

          Methods

          We conducted a scoping review using nine scientific databases and gray literature from 1992–2023. Sources were categorized as empirical or non-empirical. We used the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public Short Form 2 checklist for reporting of patient and public involvement in healthcare research and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.

          Results

          A total of 56 publications were included, consisting of 39 empirical and 17 non-empirical sources. Gray literature varied among countries and institutions encompassing different types of documents. We found an increase in the number of publications on patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research. This was evidenced by the growing number of references and institutional initiatives intended at involving the public, indicating the increasing emphasis on patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research. The terminology used to describe patient and public involvement varied over time. However, there has been a gradual narrowing down of terms as the concept of PPI has become more integrated into research practices, particularly with the involvement of funding agencies.

          Conclusion

          The utilization of patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research has substantially increased, proliferated, and gained widespread acceptance across diverse healthcare domains. The variety of approaches challenged our scoping review in terms of systematic description and impact. Patient and public involvement was applied in one or more research stages using different methodologies and terms. International agreement on terms and definitions is needed for reliable interpretation of the use of patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40900-023-00490-x.

          Abstract

          Over the past decades the importance of involving patients and the public as active partners in healthcare research has received growing acknowledgement internationally. Nonetheless, our knowledge regarding the degree of patient and public involvement (PPI) in the Nordic countries remains limited. This paper addresses this gap by investigating the status, management, and influence of PPI in healthcare research within the Nordic countries. The review of these aspects has given us a better understanding of PPI and its effects on healthcare research in the Nordic region. We looked at scientific databases and webpages including research papers, commentaries, and other materials from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland. Our goal was to gather information and provide a thorough overview of PPI practices. Our findings showed that PPI is growing with gained acceptance across different areas of health research. PPI was used at different stages of the research process, but there wasn’t a common agreement on its importance and the additional value it brings to the quality of research. The study was challenged by the many different terms and definitions, which affected the clarity of our study’s purpose (or goals).However, we made efforts to address this by carefully reviewing the different terms and definitions used in the literature, striving to capture the essence of PPI in our analysis. By acknowledging this variation, we aimed to provide a wide-ranging overview while identifying the complexities and nuances related with PPI in the Nordic healthcare research. We assume that achieving international agreement on terms and definitions of PPI would certainly improve the trustworthiness in future reviews.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40900-023-00490-x.

          Related collections

          Most cited references74

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions

              Background Supporting 21st century health care and the practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM) requires ubiquitous access to clinical information and to knowledge-based resources to answer clinical questions. Many questions go unanswered, however, due to lack of skills in formulating questions, crafting effective search strategies, and accessing databases to identify best levels of evidence. Methods This randomized trial was designed as a pilot study to measure the relevancy of search results using three different interfaces for the PubMed search system. Two of the search interfaces utilized a specific framework called PICO, which was designed to focus clinical questions and to prompt for publication type or type of question asked. The third interface was the standard PubMed interface readily available on the Web. Study subjects were recruited from interns and residents on an inpatient general medicine rotation at an academic medical center in the US. Thirty-one subjects were randomized to one of the three interfaces, given 3 clinical questions, and asked to search PubMed for a set of relevant articles that would provide an answer for each question. The success of the search results was determined by a precision score, which compared the number of relevant or gold standard articles retrieved in a result set to the total number of articles retrieved in that set. Results Participants using the PICO templates (Protocol A or Protocol B) had higher precision scores for each question than the participants who used Protocol C, the standard PubMed Web interface. (Question 1: A = 35%, B = 28%, C = 20%; Question 2: A = 5%, B = 6%, C = 4%; Question 3: A = 1%, B = 0%, C = 0%) 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the precision for each question using a lower boundary of zero. However, the 95% confidence limits were overlapping, suggesting no statistical difference between the groups. Conclusion Due to the small number of searches for each arm, this pilot study could not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the search protocols. However there was a trend towards higher precision that needs to be investigated in a larger study to determine if PICO can improve the relevancy of search results.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Kristine.elberg.dengsoe@regionh.dk
                Journal
                Res Involv Engagem
                Res Involv Engagem
                Research Involvement and Engagement
                BioMed Central (London )
                2056-7529
                30 August 2023
                30 August 2023
                2023
                : 9
                : 72
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.475435.4, Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, , Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, ; Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
                [2 ]GRID grid.5254.6, ISNI 0000 0001 0674 042X, Department of Clinical Medicine, , University of Copenhagen, ; Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
                [3 ]GRID grid.475435.4, Centre for Cancer and Organ Diseases, , Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, ; Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
                [4 ]GRID grid.475435.4, Neuroscience Centre, , Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, ; Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
                [5 ]GRID grid.475435.4, Department of Hematology, , Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, ; Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
                [6 ]GRID grid.475435.4, Department of Intensive Care, , Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, ; Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
                [7 ]GRID grid.4973.9, ISNI 0000 0004 0646 7373, Department of Oncology, , Copenhagen University Hospital, ; Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
                [8 ]GRID grid.463529.f, ISNI 0000 0004 0610 6148, Centre of Diaconia and Professional Practice, , VID Specialized University, ; Oslo, Norway
                [9 ]GRID grid.7048.b, ISNI 0000 0001 1956 2722, Department of Public Health, , Aarhus University, ; Aarhus, Denmark
                [10 ]GRID grid.10825.3e, ISNI 0000 0001 0728 0170, Department of Public Health, , University of Southern Denmark, ; Odense, Denmark
                [11 ]GRID grid.475435.4, Department of Hematology, Centre for Cancer and Organ Diseases, , Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, ; Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
                Article
                490
                10.1186/s40900-023-00490-x
                10466765
                37649111
                eda3d7a9-5b14-4462-af7c-dd3c24dd0e2a
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 12 June 2023
                : 21 August 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: Royal Library, Copenhagen University Library
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023

                Comments

                Comment on this article