ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The co-design of health care enables patient-centredness by partnering patients, clinicians and other stakeholders together to create services. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of co-designed health interventions for people living with multimorbidity and assessed (a) their effectiveness in improving health outcomes, (b) the co-design approaches used and (c) barriers and facilitators to the co-design process with people living with multimorbidity. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus and PsycINFO between 2000 and March 2022. Included experimental studies were quality assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB-2 and ROBINS-I). RESULTS: We screened 14,376 reports, with 13 reports meeting the eligibility criteria. Two reported health and well-being outcomes: one randomised clinical trial (n = 134) and one controlled cohort (n = 1933). Outcome measures included quality of life, self-efficacy, well-being, anxiety, depression, functional status, healthcare utilisation and mortality. Outcomes favouring the co-design interventions compared to control were minimal, with only 4 of 17 outcomes considered beneficial. Co-design approaches included needs assessment/ideation (12 of 13), prototype (11 of 13), pilot testing (5 of 13) (i.e. focus on usability) and health and well-being evaluations (2 of 13). Common challenges to the co-design process include poor stakeholder interest, passive participation, power imbalances and a lack of representativeness in the design group. Enablers include flexibility in approach, smaller group work, advocating for stakeholders' views and commitment to the process or decisions made. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review of co-design health interventions, we found that few projects assessed health and well-being outcomes, and the observed health and well-being benefits were minimal. The intensity and variability in the co-design approaches were substantial, and challenges were evident. Co-design aided the design of novel services and interventions for those with multimorbidity, improving their relevance, usability and acceptability. However, the clinical benefits of co-designed interventions for those with multimorbidity are unclear.
Subject(s)
Multimorbidity , Quality of Life , Humans , Outcome Assessment, Health CareABSTRACT
Introduction: Healthcare integration has become prevalent as health systems manage a growing population of older adults with multi-morbid conditions. The integrated general hospital (IGH) is the latest example of how services can be remodelled to achieve greater care integration. Methods: We conducted a mixed-method evaluation to identify factors impacting the implementation and effectiveness of the IGH model. Data were collected through in-depth interviews (n = 15) and focus group discussions (n = 8 groups) with hospital staff, and a staff survey (n = 226). Results: Staff perceived improvements in clinical practice and better clinical outcomes for patients. The care model empowered nursing and allied health staff through a more collegial team structure. However, staff reported an unequal workload distribution; a third reported burnout; and some observed inconsistencies between leaders' aspirations for IGH and what was happening on the ground. For IGH to sustain, staff's education on the IGH model needs to be improved. Further examination of work processes is recommended to boost staff morale and prevent burnout. Conclusion: Overall, IGH provided better integrated, team-based care. The model challenged traditional team structures and empowered staff to expand their roles and responsibilities. Policymakers could consider the IGH model a successful approach for integrating services across the care continuum.
