Reflections on an Evidence Review Process to Inform the Co-Design of a Toolkit for Supporting End-of-Life Care Planning With People With Intellectual Disabilities

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Elizabeth Tilley, Lorna Rouse, Irene Tuffrey-Wijne, Rebecca Anderson-Kittow
{"title":"Reflections on an Evidence Review Process to Inform the Co-Design of a Toolkit for Supporting End-of-Life Care Planning With People With Intellectual Disabilities","authors":"Elizabeth Tilley,&nbsp;Lorna Rouse,&nbsp;Irene Tuffrey-Wijne,&nbsp;Rebecca Anderson-Kittow","doi":"10.1111/hex.70062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>There is growing recognition that healthcare inequalities faced by people with intellectual disabilities extend to their experiences at the end of life, resulting in calls for more inclusive research to help address these inequities. Our study aimed to address this through the co-design of a toolkit for supporting end-of-life care planning with people with intellectual disabilities. To inform the co-design process, we undertook an evidence review to identify existing tools, resources and approaches that were already being used in practice.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Our evidence review comprised three components: (i) a rapid scoping review of the academic literature, (ii) a desk-based search of the grey literature and (iii) an online survey to capture unpublished resources that were distributed to services, professionals, third-sector organisations and family members. A longlist of existing materials was appraised using an adapted version of the AGREE II instrument, resulting in a shortlist that was shared with the co-design team.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The evidence review played a critical role in the co-design of a new toolkit of end-of-life care resources for people with intellectual disabilities. However, AGREE II proved to be limited for our purposes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The survey was particularly useful in helping us identify resources, tools and approaches in current use. We identified evidence review processes that served to support co-design team activities and elements that were more problematic. We argue that evidence review practices might be enhanced to better aid co-design activities in health and care research, particularly for studies involving people with intellectual disabilities.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>This article reflects on an evidence review that was conducted as part of The Victoria and Stuart Project. People with intellectual disabilities were deeply involved at every stage of project design, delivery and dissemination. The project employed people with intellectual disabilities as members of the core research team. People with intellectual disabilities and family carers were members of the project co-design team and the project Advisory Group. The evidence review process itself was led by academic members of the research team with contributions from colleagues with intellectual disabilities via the Advisory Group and core research team. The findings from the evidence review were used by the co-design team to inform the development of an end-of-life care planning toolkit for people with intellectual disabilities.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"27 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70062","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70062","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

There is growing recognition that healthcare inequalities faced by people with intellectual disabilities extend to their experiences at the end of life, resulting in calls for more inclusive research to help address these inequities. Our study aimed to address this through the co-design of a toolkit for supporting end-of-life care planning with people with intellectual disabilities. To inform the co-design process, we undertook an evidence review to identify existing tools, resources and approaches that were already being used in practice.

Methods

Our evidence review comprised three components: (i) a rapid scoping review of the academic literature, (ii) a desk-based search of the grey literature and (iii) an online survey to capture unpublished resources that were distributed to services, professionals, third-sector organisations and family members. A longlist of existing materials was appraised using an adapted version of the AGREE II instrument, resulting in a shortlist that was shared with the co-design team.

Results

The evidence review played a critical role in the co-design of a new toolkit of end-of-life care resources for people with intellectual disabilities. However, AGREE II proved to be limited for our purposes.

Conclusions

The survey was particularly useful in helping us identify resources, tools and approaches in current use. We identified evidence review processes that served to support co-design team activities and elements that were more problematic. We argue that evidence review practices might be enhanced to better aid co-design activities in health and care research, particularly for studies involving people with intellectual disabilities.

Patient or Public Contribution

This article reflects on an evidence review that was conducted as part of The Victoria and Stuart Project. People with intellectual disabilities were deeply involved at every stage of project design, delivery and dissemination. The project employed people with intellectual disabilities as members of the core research team. People with intellectual disabilities and family carers were members of the project co-design team and the project Advisory Group. The evidence review process itself was led by academic members of the research team with contributions from colleagues with intellectual disabilities via the Advisory Group and core research team. The findings from the evidence review were used by the co-design team to inform the development of an end-of-life care planning toolkit for people with intellectual disabilities.

对证据审查过程的思考,为共同设计支持智障人士临终关怀规划的工具包提供信息
导言:越来越多的人认识到,智障人士在医疗保健方面面临的不平等会延伸到他们在生命末期的经历,因此呼吁开展更具包容性的研究,以帮助解决这些不平等问题。我们的研究旨在通过共同设计支持智障人士临终关怀规划的工具包来解决这一问题。为了给共同设计过程提供信息,我们进行了一项证据审查,以确定已经在实践中使用的现有工具、资源和方法。 方法 我们的证据审查包括三个部分:(i) 对学术文献进行快速范围界定;(ii) 对灰色文献进行案头检索;(iii) 进行在线调查,以获取分发给服务机构、专业人士、第三部门组织和家庭成员的未出版资源。使用 AGREE II 工具的改编版对现有资料的长名单进行了评估,最终确定了一份短名单,并与共同设计小组共享。 结果 在为智障人士共同设计临终关怀资源新工具包的过程中,证据审查发挥了至关重要的作用。然而,事实证明 AGREE II 对于我们的目的来说是有限的。 结论 该调查在帮助我们确定当前使用的资源、工具和方法方面尤为有用。我们确定了有助于支持共同设计团队活动的证据审查流程,以及存在较多问题的要素。我们认为,在健康和护理研究中,尤其是在涉及智障人士的研究中,可以加强证据审查实践,以更好地帮助共同设计活动。 患者或公众的贡献 本文反映了作为维多利亚与斯图尔特项目的一部分而进行的证据审查。智障人士深入参与了项目设计、实施和传播的各个阶段。该项目聘用智障人士作为核心研究团队的成员。智障人士和家庭照顾者是项目共同设计小组和项目顾问小组的成员。证据审查过程本身由研究小组的学术成员领导,智障同事通过咨询小组和核心研究小组提供意见。共同设计小组利用证据审查的结果,为智障人士临终关怀规划工具包的开发提供了参考。
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
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信