Patient experiences of co-designed rehabilitation interventions: protocol for a rapid review

McKercher, Jonathan P; Slade, Susan C; Jazayeri, Jalal; Hodge, Anita; Knight, Matthew; Green, Janet; Woods, Jeffrey; Morris, Meg E.

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056927

Cited by 2 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This review was coauthored with two consumers and was rigorously conducted in accordance with a peer-reviewed protocol paper and best practice guidelines. 30 31 33 As a rapid review, truncated methods endorsed by The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Method Group were used to expediate the review process. 33 This included a date restriction during database searching, a limit on databases searched and a restriction on grey and supplemental literature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…34 Patient and public involvement This rapid review and its preceding protocol paper have been coauthored by two consumer representatives. 30 The consumer representatives assisted in the codesign of this paper in several ways including the conception, development and refinement of the research question; planning for the rapid review; and reviewing the manuscript.…”

Section: Methods and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The protocol for this rapid review has been published online in BMJ Open and registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO CRD42021264547) 29 30. The rapid review has been completed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) as there is no peer-reviewed reporting guideline for rapid reviews 31 32…”

Section: Methods and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Patient experiences of codesigned rehabilitation interventions in hospitals: a rapid review

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCodesign strengthens partnerships between healthcare workers and patients. It also facilitates collaborations supporting the development, design and delivery of healthcare services. Prior rehabilitation reviews have focused mainly on the clinical and organisational outcomes of codesign with less focus on the lived experience of rehabilitation patients.ObjectiveTo explore patient experiences of codesigned hospital rehabilitation interventions.DesignRapid review and evidence synthesis of the literature.Data sourcesCINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane were searched from 1 January 2000 to 25 April 2022.Study selectionStudies reporting patient experiences of codesigned rehabilitation interventions in hospitals.Results4156 studies were screened, and 38 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility. Seven studies were included in the final rapid review. Five out of the seven studies involved neurological rehabilitation. All eligible studies used qualitative research methods. The main barriers to codesign were related to staffing and dedicated time allocated to face-to-face patient-therapist interactions. High-quality relationships between patients and their therapists were a facilitator of codesign. Thematic synthesis revealed that codesigned rehabilitation interventions can enable a meaningful experience for patients and facilitate tailoring of treatments to align with individual needs. Personalised rehabilitation increases patient involvement in rehabilitation planning, delivery and decision-making. It also promotes positive feelings of empowerment and hope.ConclusionThis rapid review supports the implementation of codesigned rehabilitation interventions to improve patient experiences in hospitals.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021264547.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methods and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methods and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patient experiences of codesigned rehabilitation interventions in hospitals: a rapid review

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6 School of Allied Health, Health Research Institute, Ageing Research Centre, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland. 7 Victorian Rehabilitation Centre, Healthscope Limited, Glen Waverley, VIC, Australia.…”

Section: Appendixmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By engaging patients in co-evaluation of their responses to surgery, health professionals and administrators can implement patient-informed, co-produced policies, procedures and interventions [4,5]. Prior to large scale implementation of PROMS across hospitals globally, it is important to understand PROM feasibility, acceptability and outcomes from a surgical patient perspective [6,7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing PROMS for elective surgery patients: feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability

Brusco

Atkinson

Woods

et al. 2022

J Patient Rep Outcomes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) engage patients in co-evaluation of their health and wellbeing outcomes. This study aimed to determine the feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability of a PROM survey for elective surgery. Methods We sampled patients with a broad range of elective surgeries from four major Australian hospitals to evaluate (1) feasibility of the technology used to implement the PROMs across geographically dispersed sites, (2) response rates for automated short message service (SMS) versus email survey delivery formats, (3) the degree of recovery at one and four weeks post-surgery as measured by the Quality of Recovery 15 Item PROM (QoR-15), and (4) patient acceptability of PROMS based on survey and focus group results. Feasibility and acceptability recommendations were then co-designed with stakeholders, based on the data. Results Over three months there were 5985 surveys responses from 20,052 surveys (30% response rate). Feasibility testing revealed minor and infrequent technical difficulties in automated email and SMS administration of PROMs prior to surgery. The response rate for the QoR-15 was 34.8% (n = 3108/8919) for SMS and 25.8% (n = 2877/11,133) for email. Mean QoR-15 scores were 122.1 (SD 25.2; n = 1021); 113.1 (SD 27.7; n = 1906) and 123.4 (SD 26.84; n = 1051) for pre-surgery and one and four weeks post-surgery, respectively. One week after surgery, 825 of the 1906 responses (43%) exceeded 122.6 (pre-surgery average), and at four weeks post-surgery, 676 of the 1051 responses (64%) exceeded 122.6 (pre-surgery average). The PROM survey was highly acceptable with 76% (n = 2830/3739) of patients rating 8/10 or above for acceptability. Fourteen patient driven recommendations were then co-developed. Conclusion Administering PROMS electronically for elective surgery hospital patients was feasible, acceptable and discriminated changes in surgical recovery over time. Patient co-design and involvement provided innovative and practical solutions to implementation and new recommendations for implementation. Trial Registration and Ethical Approval ACTRN12621000298819 (Phase I and II) and ACTRN12621000969864 (Phase III). Ethics approval has been obtained from La Trobe University (Australia) Human Research Ethics Committee (HEC20479). Key points Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) help to engage patients in understanding their health and wellbeing outcomes. This study aimed to determine how patients feel about completing a PROM survey before and after elective surgery, and to develop a set of recommendations on how to roll out the survey, based on patient feedback. We found that implementing an electronic PROM survey before and after elective surgery was relatively easy to do and was well accepted by patients. Consumer feedback throughout the project enabled co-design of innovative and practical solutions to PROM survey administration.

show abstract

Patient experiences of co-designed rehabilitation interventions: protocol for a rapid review

Cited by 2 publications

References 28 publications

Patient experiences of codesigned rehabilitation interventions in hospitals: a rapid review

Patient experiences of codesigned rehabilitation interventions in hospitals: a rapid review

Implementing PROMS for elective surgery patients: feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About