Methods for Involving People With Dementia in Health Policy and Guideline Development: A Scoping Review

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Felix Bühler, Jennifer Geyer, Gabriele Meyer, Anja Bieber
{"title":"Methods for Involving People With Dementia in Health Policy and Guideline Development: A Scoping Review","authors":"Felix Bühler,&nbsp;Jennifer Geyer,&nbsp;Gabriele Meyer,&nbsp;Anja Bieber","doi":"10.1111/hex.70250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Patient and public involvement (PPI) is considered part of best-practice for health care delivery, research and policy. However, people with dementia are frequently excluded from PPI initiatives. While recent studies have investigated PPI of people with dementia in research, little is known about their involvement at the macro-level of care, that is, in health policy and guideline development. This scoping review maps the evidence on PPI of people with dementia at the macro-level of care, focusing on the methods, outcomes and mechanisms of involvement.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We systematically searched MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and GeroLit. Additionally, we performed forward and backward citation searching, manually tracked individual references, searched abstract books and yearbooks, and contacted authors of included reports to seek additional references. We analysed each method's mechanisms of involvement to assess whether measures were taken to maximise effective information transfer.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We included 43 reports and identified 35 involvement methods, which we structured into six categories: ‘focus groups and interviews’, ‘surveys and questionnaires’, ‘public events’, ‘meetings with decision-makers’, ‘serving as members of working groups’, and ‘multiple-step methods’. Most of the involvement took the form of consultations during the early stages of policy or guideline development. All involvement methods required verbal communication skills, almost all of the participants had mild dementia. We found that most reports did not clearly state the involvement outcomes. While a majority of methods had some facilitation in place to elicit information from participating people with dementia, only nine methods used a structured aggregation to synthesise participants' contributions into a joint statement.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>We found limited evidence of dementia-adapted involvement. Future research might focus on exploring the mechanisms of involvement to adapt methods to specific target groups, such as people with impaired verbal communication or advanced dementia. We recommend using existing guidance to report PPI initiatives, as the reporting was often incomplete, which limits reproducibility.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>We discussed both our study protocol and our results with a working group of people with dementia, who provided valuable insight for our data interpretation. Our findings can serve such groups for future consultations.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"28 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70250","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70250","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

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is considered part of best-practice for health care delivery, research and policy. However, people with dementia are frequently excluded from PPI initiatives. While recent studies have investigated PPI of people with dementia in research, little is known about their involvement at the macro-level of care, that is, in health policy and guideline development. This scoping review maps the evidence on PPI of people with dementia at the macro-level of care, focusing on the methods, outcomes and mechanisms of involvement.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and GeroLit. Additionally, we performed forward and backward citation searching, manually tracked individual references, searched abstract books and yearbooks, and contacted authors of included reports to seek additional references. We analysed each method's mechanisms of involvement to assess whether measures were taken to maximise effective information transfer.

Results

We included 43 reports and identified 35 involvement methods, which we structured into six categories: ‘focus groups and interviews’, ‘surveys and questionnaires’, ‘public events’, ‘meetings with decision-makers’, ‘serving as members of working groups’, and ‘multiple-step methods’. Most of the involvement took the form of consultations during the early stages of policy or guideline development. All involvement methods required verbal communication skills, almost all of the participants had mild dementia. We found that most reports did not clearly state the involvement outcomes. While a majority of methods had some facilitation in place to elicit information from participating people with dementia, only nine methods used a structured aggregation to synthesise participants' contributions into a joint statement.

Conclusion

We found limited evidence of dementia-adapted involvement. Future research might focus on exploring the mechanisms of involvement to adapt methods to specific target groups, such as people with impaired verbal communication or advanced dementia. We recommend using existing guidance to report PPI initiatives, as the reporting was often incomplete, which limits reproducibility.

Patient or Public Contribution

We discussed both our study protocol and our results with a working group of people with dementia, who provided valuable insight for our data interpretation. Our findings can serve such groups for future consultations.

Abstract Image

将痴呆患者纳入健康政策和指南制定的方法:范围综述
患者和公众参与(PPI)被认为是卫生保健提供、研究和政策的最佳实践的一部分。然而,痴呆症患者经常被排除在个人健康计划之外。虽然最近的研究对痴呆症患者的PPI进行了调查,但对其在宏观护理层面的参与知之甚少,即在卫生政策和指南制定方面的参与。本综述概述了宏观护理层面上痴呆症患者PPI的证据,重点关注参与的方法、结果和机制。方法通过PubMed、CINAHL、Cochrane Library和GeroLit系统检索MEDLINE。此外,我们进行了向前和向后引文检索,手动跟踪单个参考文献,检索摘要书籍和年鉴,并联系纳入报告的作者以寻求其他参考文献。我们分析了每种方法的参与机制,以评估是否采取了措施来最大化有效的信息传递。结果我们纳入了43份报告,确定了35种参与方法,我们将其分为六类:“焦点小组和访谈”、“调查和问卷”、“公共事件”、“与决策者会面”、“作为工作组成员”和“多步骤方法”。大多数参与是在政策或准则制定的早期阶段采取协商的形式。所有的参与方法都需要语言沟通能力,几乎所有的参与者都有轻度痴呆。我们发现大多数报告没有清楚地说明介入的结果。虽然大多数方法都有一些便利措施,可以从参与研究的痴呆症患者那里获取信息,但只有9种方法使用结构化的聚合方式,将参与者的贡献综合成一份联合声明。结论:我们发现有限的证据表明痴呆适应性受累。未来的研究可能会集中在探索参与的机制,以适应特定的目标群体,如语言交流受损或晚期痴呆的人。我们建议使用现有的指南来报告PPI计划,因为报告通常是不完整的,这限制了可重复性。我们与痴呆患者工作组讨论了我们的研究方案和结果,他们为我们的数据解释提供了有价值的见解。我们的调查结果可以为这些团体今后的磋商服务。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信