scispace - formally typeset
Open AccessJournal ArticleDOI

Patient and public involvement in medical performance processes: A systematic review.

TLDR
Patient and public involvement (PPI) continues to develop as a central policy agenda in health care and the patient voice is seen as relevant, informative and can drive service improvement.
Abstract
Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) continues to develop as a central policy agenda in health care. The patient voice is seen as relevant, informative and can drive service improvement. However, critical exploration of PPI's role within monitoring and informing medical performance processes remains limited. Objective To explore and evaluate the contribution of PPI in medical performance processes to understand its extent, purpose and process. Search strategy The electronic databases PubMed, PsycINFO and Google Scholar were systematically searched for studies published between 2004 and 2018. Inclusion criteria Studies involving doctors and patients and all forms of patient input (eg, patient feedback) associated with medical performance were included. Data extraction and synthesis Using an inductive approach to analysis and synthesis, a coding framework was developed which was structured around three key themes: issues that shape PPI in medical performance processes; mechanisms for PPI; and the potential impacts of PPI on medical performance processes. Main results From 4772 studies, 48 articles (from 10 countries) met the inclusion criteria. Findings suggest that the extent of PPI in medical performance processes globally is highly variable and is primarily achieved through providing patient feedback or complaints. The emerging evidence suggests that PPI can encourage improvements in the quality of patient care, enable professional development and promote professionalism. Discussion and conclusions Developing more innovative methods of PPI beyond patient feedback and complaints may help revolutionize the practice of PPI into a collaborative partnership, facilitating the development of proactive relationships between the medical profession, patients and the public.

read more

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

The impact of patient and public involvement in health research versus healthcare: A scoping review of reviews.

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors compared what types of impact have been reported in reviews of PPI in health research and healthcare, respectively, and to map differences and similarities between the review studies.
Journal ArticleDOI

The patient as a prosumer of healthcare: insights from a bibliometric-interpretive review

TL;DR: In this paper , a review of the state of the art of the scientific literature in the field of innovations aimed at sustaining the transition toward patient-centeredness and providing some food for thoughts to scholars and practitioners who wish to push forward service co-production and value co-creation in healthcare.
Journal ArticleDOI

Identifying and encouraging high-quality healthcare: an analysis of the content and aims of patient letters of compliment.

TL;DR: Compliment letters reveal that patients value extra-role behaviour in clinical, management and especially relationship domains, and can potentially contribute to healthcare services through promoting desirable behaviours and giving staff social recognition.
Journal ArticleDOI

The View From the Inside: Positionality and Insider Research:

TL;DR: The research program that I conceptualized, developed, and am currently undertaking with the support of my supervisory team was borne out of my lived experience as a young adult with inflammatory arthritis, and there is a paucity of research dedicated to working-age populations.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

TL;DR: Moher et al. as mentioned in this paper introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which is used in this paper.

Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic Reviews. A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme. Version 1

TL;DR: Titles & abstract s Titles & abstracts include N=54 Include N=121 Including N=89 Ex exclude N = 0 Exclude N = 1,024 Exclusion N = 21.
Journal ArticleDOI

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

TL;DR: 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, and this pilot study could not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the search protocols.

Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in sytematic reviews

TL;DR: Titles & abstracts as discussed by the authors include N=54, N=121, N = 89 Exclude N = 0 Exclude n = 1,024, and exclude N = 21.
Related Papers (5)