A Co-Design Process to Elaborate Educational Materials to Promote Appropriate Use of Antibiotics for Acute Lower Respiratory Tract Infections in Primary Healthcare in Catalonia (Spain)

Abstract

Purpose Co-design processes with patients allow developing health education materials, that are adapted to the population’s knowledge and use of language, to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use. Patients and Methods This study presents a co-design process of educational material with patients (over 18 years old) with a previous diagnosis of acute lower respiratory tract infection. The co-design was framed within a qualitative study (Phase I, interviews; Phase II, focus group) conducted in Barcelona between April and September 2019. Results Twenty-nine semi-structured interviews were conducted. Six people participated in the focus group. Based on participants’ narratives, educational materials can be useful to support healthcare consultations. Materials should be designed to be accessible in terms of the content and language used. Conclusion The co-design of educational materials is essential for health promotion. This study presents an example of how materials can be co-developed with patients. The material elaborated in this study is being used for the ISAAC-CAT project and may be useful for future research, practice in health services and health policy.

What Are the Best Practices for Co-Creating Patient-Facing Educational Materials? A Scoping Review of the Literature

“…Identified articles were published between 2007 and 2022, and 33/44 (75%) of papers were published since 2017, reflecting that co-creation is a relatively recent adoption in patient education (Figure 2) [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]20,21,[23][24][25][26][27][28]31,34,[36][37][38]40,41,[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]. Three-quarters of papers were from anglophone countries-United States: n = 17 [8,9,17,19,20,22,25,27,[31][32][33][34]36,42,47,49,…”

“…One study used a combination of both a user-centered design and a participatory approach [19]. Other heterogeneous terminology was used to describe the approach to co-creation, including constructivist qualitative methodology [13,16,45], social cognitive theory [32], health action process approach [44], plando-study-act [39,43], patient empowerment model (interactive learning and action) [11], and an intervention mapping protocol [12]. Almost half (21/44, 47.7%) of studies involved patient partners from the very beginning of the co-creation process [14,17,[19][20][21]24,26,28,29,31,34,[36][37][38]40,41,[46][47][48]50,51].…”

“…In terms of measuring outcomes of co-creating PEMs, almost a quarter (10/44, 22.7%) of studies [9,11,20,23,25,26,30,39,40,43] did not employ an evaluation method and 4/44 (9.1%) studies [16,17,19,42] only reported on PEM development without reporting outcomes, as they were a component of an ongoing clinical trial. Of the 30 studies reporting outcome measures of co-created PEMs, qualitative methodology (i.e., user interviews, focus groups, open-ended survey responses, diaries, or "think aloud" exercises) was the most common approach, either alone or combined with another instrument (Table 1).…”

“…Author-reported strengths and weaknesses were captured in the data extraction form (Table S1). Half of the studies (22/44, 50%) cited limited sample size, lack of diversity, and single-center recruitment as a limitation [8][9][10][11][12][13]16,18,20,23,25,27,29,32,[34][35][36]41,[45][46][47]50]. Additional limitations related to concerns regarding generalizability of findings (7/44, 15.9%) [8,11,15,23,27,30,32], recruitment challenges/possible recruitment bias (5/44, 11.4%) [14,18,24,31,40], and language concerns/English only (4/44, 9.1%) [14,24,28,48].…”