Felix Bühler, Jennifer Geyer, Gabriele Meyer, Anja Bieber
{"title":"将痴呆患者纳入健康政策和指南制定的方法:范围综述","authors":"Felix Bühler, Jennifer Geyer, Gabriele Meyer, 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":"{\"title\":\"Methods for Involving People With Dementia in Health Policy and Guideline Development: A Scoping Review\",\"authors\":\"Felix Bühler, Jennifer Geyer, Gabriele Meyer, 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}","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}
Methods for Involving People With Dementia in Health Policy and Guideline Development: A Scoping Review
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.
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.