Cargando…
What Are the Best Practices for Co-Creating Patient-Facing Educational Materials? A Scoping Review of the Literature
Co-creating patient-facing educational materials (PEMs) can enhance person-centered care by responding to patient priorities and unmet needs. Little data exist on ‘best practices’ for co-creation. We followed the Arksey and O’Malley framework to conduct a systematic literature search of nine databas...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10572900/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37830651 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11192615 |
_version_ | 1785120340522827776 |
---|---|
author | McDonald, Isabella R. Blocker, Elizabeth S. Weyman, Elizabeth A. Smith, Neil Dwyer, Andrew A. |
author_facet | McDonald, Isabella R. Blocker, Elizabeth S. Weyman, Elizabeth A. Smith, Neil Dwyer, Andrew A. |
author_sort | McDonald, Isabella R. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Co-creating patient-facing educational materials (PEMs) can enhance person-centered care by responding to patient priorities and unmet needs. Little data exist on ‘best practices’ for co-creation. We followed the Arksey and O’Malley framework to conduct a systematic literature search of nine databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute, TRIP—April, 2022) to identify empirical studies published in English on PEM co-creation to distill ‘best practices’. Following an independent dual review of articles, data were collated into tables, and thematic analysis was employed to synthesize ‘best practices’ that were validated by a patient experienced in co-creating PEMs. Bias was not assessed, given the study heterogeneity. Of 6998 retrieved articles, 44 were included for data extraction/synthesis. Studies utilized heterogeneous methods spanning a range of health conditions/populations. Only 5/45 (11%) studies defined co-creation, 14 (32%) used a guiding framework, and 18 (41%) used validated evaluation tools. Six ‘best practices’ were identified: (1) begin with a review of the literature, (2) utilize a framework to inform the process, (3) involve clinical and patient experts from the beginning, (4) engage diverse perspectives, (5) ensure patients have the final decision, and (6) employ validated evaluation tools. This scoping review highlights the need for clear definitions and validated evaluation measures to guide and assess the co-creation process. Identified ‘best practices’ are relevant for use with diverse patient populations and health issues to enhance person-centered care. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10572900 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105729002023-10-14 What Are the Best Practices for Co-Creating Patient-Facing Educational Materials? A Scoping Review of the Literature McDonald, Isabella R. Blocker, Elizabeth S. Weyman, Elizabeth A. Smith, Neil Dwyer, Andrew A. Healthcare (Basel) Article Co-creating patient-facing educational materials (PEMs) can enhance person-centered care by responding to patient priorities and unmet needs. Little data exist on ‘best practices’ for co-creation. We followed the Arksey and O’Malley framework to conduct a systematic literature search of nine databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute, TRIP—April, 2022) to identify empirical studies published in English on PEM co-creation to distill ‘best practices’. Following an independent dual review of articles, data were collated into tables, and thematic analysis was employed to synthesize ‘best practices’ that were validated by a patient experienced in co-creating PEMs. Bias was not assessed, given the study heterogeneity. Of 6998 retrieved articles, 44 were included for data extraction/synthesis. Studies utilized heterogeneous methods spanning a range of health conditions/populations. Only 5/45 (11%) studies defined co-creation, 14 (32%) used a guiding framework, and 18 (41%) used validated evaluation tools. Six ‘best practices’ were identified: (1) begin with a review of the literature, (2) utilize a framework to inform the process, (3) involve clinical and patient experts from the beginning, (4) engage diverse perspectives, (5) ensure patients have the final decision, and (6) employ validated evaluation tools. This scoping review highlights the need for clear definitions and validated evaluation measures to guide and assess the co-creation process. Identified ‘best practices’ are relevant for use with diverse patient populations and health issues to enhance person-centered care. MDPI 2023-09-23 /pmc/articles/PMC10572900/ /pubmed/37830651 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11192615 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article McDonald, Isabella R. Blocker, Elizabeth S. Weyman, Elizabeth A. Smith, Neil Dwyer, Andrew A. What Are the Best Practices for Co-Creating Patient-Facing Educational Materials? A Scoping Review of the Literature |
title | What Are the Best Practices for Co-Creating Patient-Facing Educational Materials? A Scoping Review of the Literature |
title_full | What Are the Best Practices for Co-Creating Patient-Facing Educational Materials? A Scoping Review of the Literature |
title_fullStr | What Are the Best Practices for Co-Creating Patient-Facing Educational Materials? A Scoping Review of the Literature |
title_full_unstemmed | What Are the Best Practices for Co-Creating Patient-Facing Educational Materials? A Scoping Review of the Literature |
title_short | What Are the Best Practices for Co-Creating Patient-Facing Educational Materials? A Scoping Review of the Literature |
title_sort | what are the best practices for co-creating patient-facing educational materials? a scoping review of the literature |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10572900/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37830651 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11192615 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mcdonaldisabellar whatarethebestpracticesforcocreatingpatientfacingeducationalmaterialsascopingreviewoftheliterature AT blockerelizabeths whatarethebestpracticesforcocreatingpatientfacingeducationalmaterialsascopingreviewoftheliterature AT weymanelizabetha whatarethebestpracticesforcocreatingpatientfacingeducationalmaterialsascopingreviewoftheliterature AT smithneil whatarethebestpracticesforcocreatingpatientfacingeducationalmaterialsascopingreviewoftheliterature AT dwyerandrewa whatarethebestpracticesforcocreatingpatientfacingeducationalmaterialsascopingreviewoftheliterature |