Understanding public perceptions toward sustainable healthcare through psychological network analysis of material preference and attitudes toward plastic medical devices.

Recent and potential future health-care users (i.e., the public) are important stakeholders in the transition toward environmentally sustainable healthcare. However, it remains unclear whether, according to the public, there is room for sustainable innovations in materials for plastic medical devices (PMD). This study explores preferences regarding conventional or bio-based PMD, and psychological mechanisms underlying these preferences. We administered two surveys among Dutch adults from a research panel. Results from the first survey (i.e., open-text survey on attitude elements; NStudy1 = 66) served as input for the second survey (i.e., Likert-scale survey on beliefs, emotions, perceived control, social norms, trust, related to current and bio-based PMD, and health and age; NStudy2 = 1001; Mage = 47.35; 54.4% female). The second survey was completed by 501 participants who, in the last two years, received care in which PMD were used, and 500 participants who did not. Cross-sectional psychological networks were estimated with data from the second study using the EBICglasso method. Results showed that participants preferred bio-based over conventional PMD, and this applied regardless of whether devices are used inside or outside of the body. Results also showed emotions play an important role, with emotions regarding bio-based PMD being strongly related to preference. Furthermore, comparing recent and potential future receivers of PMD revealed differences in preference but comparable relations between preference and other psychological variables. This study shows that receivers' perspectives should not be seen as potential barriers, but as additional motivation for transitioning toward sustainable healthcare. Recommendations for implementation are discussed.

Understanding change in COVID-19 vaccination intention with network analysis of longitudinal data from Dutch adults.

Prior research into the relationship between attitudes and vaccination intention is predominantly cross-sectional and therefore does not provide insight into directions of relations. During the COVID-19 vaccines development and enrollment phase, we studied the temporal dynamics of COVID-19 vaccination intention in relation to attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines and the pandemic, vaccination in general, social norms and trust. The data are derived from a longitudinal survey study with Dutch participants from a research panel (N = 744; six measurements between December 2020 and May 2021; age 18-84 years [M = 53.32]) and analyzed with vector-autoregression network analyses. While cross-sectional results indicated that vaccination intention was relatively strongly related to attitudes toward the vaccines, results from temporal analyses showed that vaccination intention mainly predicted other vaccination-related variables and to a lesser extent was predicted by variables. We found a weak predictive effect from social norm to vaccination intention that was not robust. This study underlines the challenge of stimulating uptake of new vaccines developed during pandemics, and the importance of examining directions of effects in research into vaccination intention.

A Psychological Network Approach to Attitudes and Preventive Behaviors During Pandemics: A COVID-19 Study in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

Preventive behaviors are crucial to prevent the spread of the coronavirus causing COVID-19. We adopted a complex psychological systems approach to obtain a descriptive account of the network of attitudes and behaviors related to COVID-19. A survey study (N = 1,022) was conducted with subsamples from the United Kingdom (n = 502) and the Netherlands (n = 520). The results highlight the importance of people's support for, and perceived efficacy of, the measures and preventive behaviors. This also applies to the perceived norm of family and friends adopting these behaviors. The networks in both countries were largely similar but also showed notable differences. The interplay of psychological factors in the networks is also highlighted, resulting in our appeal to policy makers to take complexity and mutual dependence of psychological factors into account. Future research should study the effects of interventions aimed at these factors, including effects on the network, to make causal inferences.

Do not forget the professional--the value of the FIRST model for guiding the structural involvement of patients in rheumatology research.

BACKGROUND: The FIRST model describes five practical components that enable equal collaboration between patients and professionals in clinical rheumatology research: Facilitate, identify, respect, support and training. OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of this model as a framework for setting up and guiding the structural involvement of people with arthritis in health research. METHOD: The FIRST model was used as a framework during the guidance of a network of patient research partners and clinical rheumatology departments in the Netherlands. A 'monitoring and evaluation' approach was used to study the network over a period of 2 years. Data were collected using mixed methods and subjected to a directed content analysis. The FIRST components structured the data analysis. During monitoring meetings, refined and additional descriptors for each component were formulated and added if new items were found. RESULTS: The FIRST model helps to guide and foster structural partnerships between patients and professionals in health research projects. However, it should be broadened to emphasize the pivotal role of the principal investigator regarding the facilitation and support of patient research partners, to recognize the requirements of professionals for training and coaching and to capture the dynamics of collaboration, mutual learning processes and continuous reflection. CONCLUSION: FIRST is a good model to implement sustainable relationships between patients and researchers. It will benefit from further refinement by acknowledging the dynamics of collaboration and including the concept of reflection and relational empowerment. The reciprocal character of the five components, including training and support of researchers, should be incorporated.

Patient involvement in research programming and implementation: A responsive evaluation of the Dialogue Model for research agenda setting.

BACKGROUND: The Dialogue Model for research agenda-setting, involving multiple stakeholders including patients, was developed and validated in the Netherlands. However, there is little insight into whether and how patient involvement is sustained during the programming and implementation of research agendas. AIM: To understand how the Dialogue Model can be optimised by focusing on programming and implementation, in order to stimulate the inclusion of (the perspectives of) patients in research. METHODS: A responsive evaluation of the programming and implementation phases of nine agenda-setting projects that had used the Dialogue Model for agenda-setting was conducted. Fifty-four semi-structured interviews were held with different stakeholders (patients, researchers, funding agencies). Three focus groups with patients, funding agencies and researchers (16 participants) were organized to validate the findings. RESULTS: Patient involvement in programming and implementation of the research agendas was limited. This was partly related to poor programming and implementation, partly to pitfalls in earlier phases of the agenda-setting. Optimization of the Dialogue Model is possible by attending to the nature of the agenda and its intended use in earlier phases. Attention should also be given to the ambassadors and intended users of agenda topics. Support is needed during programming and implementation to organize patient involvement and adapt organizational structures like review procedures. In all phases the attitude to patient involvement, stakeholder participation, especially of researchers, and formal and informal relationships between parties need to be addressed to build a strong relationship with a shared goal. CONCLUSION: Patient involvement in agenda-setting is not automatically followed by patient involvement in programming and implementation. More attention should be paid, in earlier stages, to the attitude and engagement of researchers and funding agencies.

Patient-expert partnerships in research: how to stimulate inclusion of patient perspectives.

OBJECTIVE To gain more insight into exclusion mechanisms and inclusion strategies in patient-expert partnerships. BACKGROUND Patient participation in health research, on the level of 'partnerships with experts' is a growing phenomenon. However, little research is conducted whether exclusion mechanisms take place and to what extent patients' perspectives are included in the final outcomes of these partnerships. Case study A dialogue meeting attended by experts, patients and patient representatives to develop a joint research agenda. Different inclusion strategies were applied during the dialogue meeting to avoid possible exclusion. METHOD Data were collected by the means of audio and video recordings, observations, document analysis and evaluative interviews. The data are clustered using a framework that divides exclusion mechanisms in three categories: circumstances, behaviour and verbal communication. The data are analysed focusing on the experiences of participants, observation of occurrence of exclusion and difference between input and outcome of the dialogue meeting. RESULTS The circumstances of the dialogue and the behaviour of the participants were experienced as mainly inclusive. Some exclusion was observed particularly with respect to verbal communication. The input of the patients was less visible in the outcome of the dialogue meeting compared to the input of the experts. CONCLUSION This case study reveals that exclusion of patients' perspective occurred during a dialogue meeting with experts, despite the fact that inclusion strategies were used and patients experienced the dialogue meeting as inclusive. To realize a more effective patient-expert partnership, more attention should be paid to the application of some additional inclusion strategies.