Cargando…

What outcomes are associated with developing and implementing co-produced interventions in acute healthcare settings? A rapid evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND: Co-production is defined as the voluntary or involuntary involvement of users in the design, management, delivery and/or evaluation of services. Interest in co-production as an intervention for improving healthcare quality is increasing. In the acute healthcare context, co-production is...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Clarke, David, Jones, Fiona, Harris, Ruth, Robert, Glenn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Open 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5734495/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28701409
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014650
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Co-production is defined as the voluntary or involuntary involvement of users in the design, management, delivery and/or evaluation of services. Interest in co-production as an intervention for improving healthcare quality is increasing. In the acute healthcare context, co-production is promoted as harnessing the knowledge of patients, carers and staff to make changes about which they care most. However, little is known regarding the impact of co-production on patient, staff or organisational outcomes in these settings. AIMS: To identify and appraise reported outcomes of co-production as an intervention to improve quality of services in acute healthcare settings. DESIGN: Rapid evidence synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Cinahl, Web of Science, Embase, HMIC, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, SCIE, Proquest Dissertation and Theses, EThOS, OpenGrey; CoDesign; The Design Journal; Design Issues. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting patient, staff or organisational outcomes associated with using co-production in an acute healthcare setting. FINDINGS: 712 titles and abstracts were screened; 24 papers underwent full-text review, and 11 papers were included in the evidence synthesis. One study was a feasibility randomised controlled trial, three were process evaluations and seven used descriptive qualitative approaches. Reported outcomes related to (a) the value of patient and staff involvement in co-production processes; (b) the generation of ideas for changes to processes, practices and clinical environments; and (c) tangible service changes and impacts on patient experiences. Only one study included cost analysis; none reported an economic evaluation. No studies assessed the sustainability of any changes made. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing interest in and advocacy for co-production, there is a lack of rigorous evaluation in acute healthcare settings. Future studies should evaluate clinical and service outcomes as well as the cost-effectiveness of co-production relative to other forms of quality improvement. Potentially broader impacts on the values and behaviours of participants should also be considered.