How can patients shape digital medicine? A rapid review of patient and public involvement and engagement in the development of digital health technologies for neurological conditions.

IF 1.8 4区医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2024-10-07 DOI:10.1080/14737167.2024.2410245

Megan Hanrahan, Cameron Wilson, Alison Keogh, Sandra Barker, Lynn Rochester, Katie Brittain, Jack Lumsdon, Ríona McArdle

{"title":"How can patients shape digital medicine? A rapid review of patient and public involvement and engagement in the development of digital health technologies for neurological conditions.","authors":"Megan Hanrahan, Cameron Wilson, Alison Keogh, Sandra Barker, Lynn Rochester, Katie Brittain, Jack Lumsdon, Ríona McArdle","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2024.2410245","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) involves working 'with' or 'by' patients and the public, rather than 'to,' 'about,' or 'for' them, and is integral to neurological and digital health research. This rapid review examined PPIE integration in the development and implementation of digital health technologies for neurological conditions.Methods: Key terms were input into six databases. Included articles were qualitative studies or PPIE activities involving patient perspectives in shaping digital health technologies for neurological conditions. Bias was evaluated using the NICE qualitative checklist, with reporting following PRISMA guidelines.Results: 2,140 articles were identified, with 28 included. Of these, 25 were qualitative studies, and only three were focused PPIE activities. Patient involvement was mostly limited to one-off consultations during development.There was little evidence of PPIE during implementation, and minimal reporting on its impact.Conclusions: PPIE has been inconsistently reported in this research area, highlighting the need for more guidance and best-practice examples This review used a UK-based definition of PPIE, which may have excluded relevant activities from other countries. Future reviews should broaden terminology to capture PPIE integration globally.","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2410245","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) involves working 'with' or 'by' patients and the public, rather than 'to,' 'about,' or 'for' them, and is integral to neurological and digital health research. This rapid review examined PPIE integration in the development and implementation of digital health technologies for neurological conditions.

Methods: Key terms were input into six databases. Included articles were qualitative studies or PPIE activities involving patient perspectives in shaping digital health technologies for neurological conditions. Bias was evaluated using the NICE qualitative checklist, with reporting following PRISMA guidelines.

Results: 2,140 articles were identified, with 28 included. Of these, 25 were qualitative studies, and only three were focused PPIE activities. Patient involvement was mostly limited to one-off consultations during development.There was little evidence of PPIE during implementation, and minimal reporting on its impact.

Conclusions: PPIE has been inconsistently reported in this research area, highlighting the need for more guidance and best-practice examples This review used a UK-based definition of PPIE, which may have excluded relevant activities from other countries. Future reviews should broaden terminology to capture PPIE integration globally.

查看原文本刊更多论文

患者如何塑造数字医学？快速回顾患者和公众参与神经系统疾病数字医疗技术开发的情况。

导言：患者与公众参与（Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement，PPIE）是指 "与 "或 "由 "患者和公众一起工作，而不是 "对"、"关于 "或 "为 "他们工作。这篇快速综述研究了神经系统疾病数字医疗技术的开发和实施过程中的PPIE整合：方法：将关键术语输入六个数据库。所纳入的文章均为定性研究或PPIE活动，涉及从患者角度塑造神经系统疾病数字医疗技术。使用NICE定性检查表对偏倚进行评估，并按照PRISMA指南进行报告。结果：共发现2,140篇文章，纳入28篇。其中25篇为定性研究，只有3篇为重点PPIE活动。在实施过程中，几乎没有证据表明开展了 PPIE，对其影响的报道也极少：本综述使用了基于英国的 PPIE 定义，可能排除了其他国家的相关活动。今后的综述应扩大术语范围，以涵盖全球范围内的 PPIE 整合。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY

CiteScore

4.00

自引率

4.30%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.