A Patient and Public Engagement Project to Inform Dementia Care in a UK Hospital Trust.

INTRODUCTION: The increasing prevalence of dementia in the United Kingdom presents significant challenges for healthcare, with projections estimating over a million affected individuals by 2025, costing the NHS £6.3 billion annually. Hospital admissions among dementia patients are common, occupying about 25% of UK hospital beds and leading to prolonged stays and diminished health outcomes. METHOD: This paper presents the opening stages, part of a larger project where Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) was employed to understand and navigate what it means for hospital care for a person living with dementia. To understand hospital care for dementia patients, focus groups were conducted through dementia cafés in Essex and Suffolk from February to July 2023 engaging patients, carers and family members. RESULTS: Recognised processes for reporting PPIE and thematic analysis were used and identified six themes and 21 subthemes regarding hospital care: individualised care, role of carers, basic care, interpersonal communication, information sharing and staffing. DISCUSSION: The results from the PPIE will be used to inform and work with stakeholders through the next phases of the project, which involves examining care processes in the hospital, identifying touchpoints and evaluating these areas. The project continues to be informed by stakeholders including people living with dementia, carers and staff. Additionally, the results may inform other service providers for care enhancements, processes and delivery. CONCLUSION: Moving forward, the study emphasises the importance of building collaborative relationships with stakeholders involved in dementia care. Additionally, it provides insights to focus areas that are fundamental for acute care organisations when delivering care to people living with dementia. By incorporating insights from PPIE, this project seeks to identify inequalities in dementia care services, improve hospital care for people living with dementia, fostering a more inclusive and supportive healthcare environment. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The purpose of the study was to explore the most important issues around hospital care for people with dementia, their carers and families. Persons living with dementia, carers and family members were involved in the study through community dementia cafés and recruited to take part in focus groups to discuss hospital care for patients with dementia. The design of questions and materials for the discussions was developed through consultation with the university department's service user lead and dementia specialist and reviewed by a service user member living with dementia. A pilot focus group was conducted with a group of carers. We worked with the dementia café managers to coordinate recruitment and a suitable environment to run the focus groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

From Innovator Result-driven to Multi-actor Impact-oriented Public-Private Partnerships: Integrating the Patient Perspective.

Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) have been crucial in medicine research and development (R&D) for decades. Initially, PPPs involved private and academic innovators working in bilateral collaborations to advance pharmaceutical innovation. Later, a precompetitive open innovation environment was created, where multiple public and private innovators collaborated on mutual interests. The entry of regulators and patient interest organizations into PPPs has triggered a third shift from an innovator result-driven to a multi-actor impact-oriented partnership model. Using the second Innovative Medicines Initiative program (IMI2) as an example, this chapter focuses on the increasing roles of patient interest organizations in PPPs in roughly the last decade.Most IMI2 partnerships focused on raising awareness and sharing information tailored to patient needs (listener role) and inviting patients to share their experiences and needs (co-thinker role). Many partnerships also integrated the patient perspective by implementing patient advisory bodies (advisor role) or including patients as equal partners in steering the project (partner role). Notably, partnerships like EUPATI and PARADIGM showed that patient interest organizations can lead initiatives, especially those aiming at advancing patient engagement across the medicine R&D lifecycle (decision-maker role). While the overall impact of patient involvement in the IMI2 program is still being assessed, it has exposed many innovators and regulators to the patient perspective and created a community of patient experts with access to tools and guidelines for meaningful involvement.The PPP model continues to evolve, shifting from a treatment-only to a comprehensive diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring approach by incorporating digital and medical technology actors. This development, alongside continued patient and public integration could revolutionize the R&D and accessibility of new treatments and diagnostics.

Patient perspectives on climate friendly healthcare: an exploratory study in obstetrics and gynaecology.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate patient perspectives on climate change and climate change mitigation strategies in healthcare. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey among gynaecological patients from two Dutch outpatient clinics. Main outcomes included patients' climate-related knowledge and worry, climate friendly healthcare perspectives and willingness to opt for climate friendly treatment alternatives. Multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to explore patient characteristics associated with climate friendly healthcare perspectives. RESULTS: 274 surveys were included. Most patients (79 %) were worried about climate change. Although almost all (91 %) found it important to contribute to climate protection, patients showed hesitance regarding healthcare measures that would impinge on individual choices. 62 % was willing to opt for climate friendly treatments, but this proportion varied by medical condition. Climate-related knowledge and worry were both positively associated with climate friendly healthcare perspectives. CONCLUSION: Gynaecological patients are concerned about climate change and possess substantial self-reported climate-related knowledge. Patients vary in their support of climate action that involves individual patient care, but the majority is open to choose climate friendly treatment alternatives for certain medical conditions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This exploratory study holds implications for the feasibility of integrating climate impact into clinical decision-making and provides a foundation for normative evidence for decarbonizing healthcare.

Patient perspectives on adverse event investigations in health care.

BACKGROUND: Over the last decade attention has grown to give patients and next of kin (P/N) more substantial roles in adverse event investigations. Adverse event investigations occur after adverse events that resulted in death or severe injury. Few studies have focused on patient perspectives on their involvement in such investigations. The present study sets out to investigate how P/N and patient representatives (client councils and the Patient Federation Netherlands) view the involvement of P/N in adverse event investigations, particularly whether and why they want to involved, and how they want to shape their involvement. METHODS: The study features qualitative data on three levels: interviews with P/N (personal), focus groups with representatives of client councils (institutional), and an interview with the Patient Federation Netherlands (national). Researchers used inductive, thematic analysis and validated the results through data source triangulation. RESULTS: The initiative taken by the hospitals in this study provided P/N with the space to feel heard and a position as legitimate stakeholder. P/N appreciated the opportunity to choose whether and how they wanted to be involved in the investigation as stakeholders. P/N emphasized the need for hospitals to learn from the investigations, but for them the investigation was also part of a more encompassing relationship. P/N's views showed the inextricable link between the first conversation with the health care professional and the investigation, and the ongoing care after the investigation was finalized. Hence, an adverse event investigation is part of a broader experience when understood from a patient perspective. CONCLUSIONS: An adverse event investigation should be considered as part of an existing relationship between P/N and hospital that starts before the investigation and continues during follow up care. It is crucial for hospitals to take the initiative in the investigation and in the involvement of P/N. P/N motivations for involvement can be understood as driven by agency or communion. Agentic motivations include being an active participant by choice, while communion motivations include the need to be heard.

An umbrella review of reviews on challenges to meaningful adolescent involvement in health research.

BACKGROUND: Less than 1% of studies on child and adolescent health report the involvement of adolescents in health research. This is attributed to barriers experienced by researchers and adolescents in the engagement process. To address this under-involvement of adolescents, we first need a better understanding of the factors that hinder adolescent involvement in health research. OBJECTIVE: We conducted an umbrella review of reviews to consolidate the review-level evidence on the barriers to meaningful involvement of adolescents in health research. METHODS: We preregistered this umbrella review of reviews with PROSPERO (CRD42021287467). We searched 11 databases; Google Scholar; and PROSPERO; supplemented by a hand search of the reference lists of eligible reviews, relevant journals, websites of 472 organisations, and input from experts. This resulted in the inclusion of 99 review articles exploring adolescent involvement in studies on adolescent physical or mental health, which were narratively synthesised. Adolescent coresearchers were engaged at all stages of the review. RESULTS: We found that adolescent involvement in health research is impeded by several challenges experienced by researchers and adolescents. Some challenges experienced by researchers were organisational issues which included limited resources, gatekeeping and paying adolescents. Some barriers were related to a lack of preparedness among researchers and included a lack of awareness of adolescent involvement, the need for training and guidance, and negative attitudes towards participatory research. There were also barriers around how adolescents can be involved, such as researchers finding it challenging to adapt to new methods, issues with recruitment and retention of adolescents, inclusiveness and accessibility. There were also challenges specific to adolescents, such as adolescents' skills and expertise, training, motivations and study goals. Finally, barriers related to the ethical involvement of adolescents included issues with power dynamics, confidentiality, safety and protection of adolescents. Some of the barriers reported by adolescents included tokenistic involvement, inaccessibility of adolescent involvement, and their competing demands. CONCLUSION: Researchers may find this review useful in understanding and planning for potential challenges of involving adolescents in research. Despite many identified barriers to adolescent engagement, few mitigation strategies were identified to address these barriers. There is a clear need to establish best practices for meaningful adolescent involvement in health research. PUBLIC AND PATIENT INVOLVEMENT IN THE REVIEW: Adolescents were involved at multiple stages of this umbrella review of reviews. They reviewed the protocol, screened 25% of the articles at title and abstract screening stage, screened 10% of full-text articles, and worked on data analysis. They also helped plan and conduct a participatory workshop with an adolescent advisory group to discuss the challenges experienced by adolescents in health research.

Evaluating patient participation in value-based healthcare: Current state and lessons learned.

INTRODUCTION: Value-based healthcare (VBHC) focusses on increasing value for patients. Hospitals aim to implement VBHC via value improvement (VI) teams for medical conditions. To determine the patient's perspective on value, collective patient participation is important in these teams. We therefore evaluated the current state of patient participation in VI teams and share lessons learned. METHODS: This mixed-methods study was conducted at seven collaborating hospitals in the Netherlands. A questionnaire (the public and patient engagement evaluation tool) was tailored to the study's context, completed by VI team members (n = 147 from 76 different VI teams) and analysed with descriptive statistics. In addition, 30 semistructured interviews were held with VI team members and analysed through thematic analysis. Data were collected between February 2022 and January 2023 and were triangulated by mapping the quantitative results to the interview themes. RESULTS: Thirty-eight of the 76 included VI teams reported using a form of patient participation. Many respondents (71%) indicated a lack of a clear strategy and goal for patient participation. Multiple VI team members believed that specific knowledge and skills are required for patients to participate in a VI team, but this led to concerns regarding the representativeness of participating patients. Furthermore, while patients indicated that they experienced some level of hierarchy, they also stated that they did not feel restricted hereby. Lastly, patients were satisfied with their participation and felt like equal VI team members (100%), but they did mention a lack of feedback from the VI team on their input. CONCLUSION: The results imply the lack of full implementation of patient participation within VI teams. Guidelines should be developed that provide information on how to include a representative group of patients, which methods to use, how to evaluate the impact of patient participation, and how to give feedback to participating patients. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two patient advisors were part of the research team and attended the research team meetings. They were involved as research partners in all phases of the study, including drafting the protocol (e.g., drafting interview guides and selecting the measurement instrument), interpreting the results and writing this article.

Patient partner perspectives on compensation: Insights from the Canadian Patient Partner Survey.

INTRODUCTION: There is a growing role for patients, family members and caregivers as consultants, collaborators and partners in health system settings in Canada. However, compensation for this role is not systematized. When offered, it varies in both type (e.g., one-time honorarium, salary) and amount. Further, broad-based views of patient partners on compensation are still unknown. We aimed to describe the types and frequency of compensation patient partners have been offered and their attitudes towards compensation. METHODS: This study uses data from the Canadian Patient Partner Study (CPPS) survey. The survey gathered the experiences and perspectives of those who self-identified as patient partners working across the Canadian health system. Three questions were about compensation, asking what types of compensation participants had been offered, if they had ever refused compensation, and whether they felt adequately compensated. The latter two questions included open-text comments in addition to menu-based and scaled response options. Basic frequencies were performed for all questions and open-text comments were analyzed through inductive qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 603 individuals participated in the CPPS survey. Most respondents were never or rarely offered salary (81%), honorarium (64%), gift cards (80%) or material gifts (93%) while half were offered conference registration and expenses at least sometimes. A total of 129 (26%) of 499 respondents reported refusing compensation. Of 511 respondents, half felt adequately compensated always or often, and half only sometimes, rarely or never. Open-text comments revealed positive, ambivalent and negative attitudes towards compensation. Attitudes were framed by perceptions about their role, sentiments of giving back to the health system, feelings of acknowledgement, practical considerations, values of fairness and equity and accountability relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm that compensation is not standardized in Canada. Half of survey respondents routinely feel inadequately compensated. Patient partners have diverse views of what constitutes adequate compensation inclusive of personal considerations such as a preference for volunteering, and broader concerns such as promoting equity in patient partnership. Organizations should attempt to ensure that compensation practices are clear, transparent and attentive to patient partners' unique contexts. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Two patient partners are members of the CPPS research team and have been fully engaged in all study phases from project conception to knowledge translation. They are co-authors of this manuscript. The survey was co-designed and pilot tested with patient partners and survey participants were patient partners.

Setting the international research agenda for sarcomas with patients and carers: results of phase II of the Sarcoma Patient Advocacy Global Network (SPAGN) priority setting partnership.

BACKGROUND: Typically, researchers and clinicians determine the agenda in sarcoma research. However, patient involvement can have a meaningful impact on research. Therefore, the Patient-Powered Research Network (PPRN) of the Sarcoma Patient Advocacy Global Network (SPAGN) set up a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP). The primary objective of this partnership is to identify priorities for research and patient advocacy topics. METHODS: In the first phase of this PSP, including 264 sarcoma patients and carers from all over the world, 23 research topics regarding sarcomas and 15 patient advocacy topics were identified using an online survey. In the second phase, participants were asked to fill in a top five and a top three of research and patient advocacy topics, respectively. Additionally, sociodemographic characteristics and sarcoma characteristics were collected. Social media channels, local national patient advocacy groups and the SPAGN website were used to distribute the survey. RESULTS: In total, 671 patients (75%) and carers (25%) participated in this survey. The five highest ranked research topics were related to causes of sarcoma (43%), prognosis and risk of recurrence (40%), specific subtypes of sarcoma (33%), the role of immunotherapy, targeted therapy and combined therapy (30%), and hereditary aspects (30%). The three highest ranked patient advocacy topics were improving the diagnostic process of sarcoma (39%), access to tumor DNA analysis (37%) and establishing an international sarcoma registry (37%). CONCLUSIONS: This sarcoma PSP has identified priorities for research and patient advocacy, offering guidance for researchers, assisting funding agencies with assessing project relevance and empowering patient advocates to represent the needs of patients and carers.

Bringing the voice of social housing tenants into shaping the health and care research agenda.

BACKGROUND: A larger percentage of social housing tenants have poorer physical and mental health outcomes compared to private renters and homeowners. They are also at a greater risk of respiratory conditions, cardiovascular disease, communicable disease transmission and mortality. One approach that aims to reduce health inequalities is to create research partnerships with underserved local communities. Our primary aim was to develop a research partnership with social housing tenants in Nottingham and our secondary aim was to explore the health priorities of these social housing tenants to inform future research applications. We also hope to provide a descriptive process of PPI within a social housing context for other researchers to learn from. METHODS: We used Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) as the foundation of this work, as we believed that people with lived experience of social housing, also end-users of the research, were best placed to inform us of the areas with the greatest research need. Through online and in-person focus groups, we discussed with tenants, collectively named a Social Advisory Group (SAG), their health concerns and priorities. Together they raised 26 health issues, which were combined with 22 funding opportunity themes being offered by the NIHR (National Institute for Health and Care Research). This was with the purpose of investigating whether there was alignment between the health needs of Nottingham's social housing tenants and the NIHR's research priorities. A prioritisation technique (Diamond Nine) was used to sort in total, 48 areas of health and wellbeing, into three top priorities. Tenants were provided the opportunity to be involved in public health research in other ways too, such as reviewing this paper and also an NIHR Programme Development Grant application to expand and continue this work. One was also offered the opportunity to be a public co-applicant. RESULTS: The group prioritised improvements in the quality of social housing, mental health and healthcare services. There was only some alignment between these and the NIHR funding themes. Other factors, such as age and race, also determined individual health priorities. . The diversity and reach of the current project were limited, however this is something we hope to improve in the future with more funding. We learned that tenants have varying degrees of mobility and technological abilities, requiring both online and in-person meetings.

Social housing is offered to people who cannot afford to buy or rent in the open market, and a larger percentage of social housing tenants have poorer physical and mental health outcomes compared to the general population. One approach that aims to reduce health inequalities is to create sustainable research partnerships with underserved local communities. Our primary aim was to involve social housing tenants in public health research, as they are best placed to tell us the type of research they would benefit from. The secondary aim was to explore the health priorities of social housing tenants to inform future research applications. We also hope to describe the process of PPI within a social housing context for other researchers to learn from.To achieve these aims, we established a research partnership with a group of social housing tenants in Nottingham and spoke to them about the areas of their health they wanted to improve (i.e., their priorities). The topics that were discussed the most were the need for improved mental health, quality of social housing and healthcare services, however this varied between individuals according to race and age. We learned several things throughout this process. Firstly, the combination of mobility and technological abilities amongst tenants meant that meetings must be held both in-person and online. This ensured they remained accessible and convenient. Secondly, we learnt that in-person meetings should be held in a neutral space to encourage different members of the group to attend. Finally, in general, people were very enthusiastic about this partnership and were committed to seeing improvements in public health. We therefore provided more opportunities for the group to be involved in research. For example, they were offered the opportunity to write and edit a lay summary for a future research application, which was based on the priorities identified in this paper. One member of the group was nominated to be the public co-applicant , which would allow us to increase the reach of this housing work across the East Midlands. It would also allow us to increase the diversity of the group, as currently it is made up of mostly retired females of British origin. Involving the public in health research has been central to this process and continues to be important in the production of accessible and relevant research.

A scoping review of patients as partners in undergraduate allied health curriculum: How are they involved?

INTRODUCTION: Patient participation in undergraduate education has been proven to contribute to student skills development complementing their didactic training. An increasing number of educational programs have implemented systematic patient engagement in curriculum to comply with the requirements of professional and regulatory bodies and to ensure greater focus on patient care. This scoping review aims to identify and summarize literature on the integration of patients and associated benefits in undergraduate allied health education programs. METHODS: This scoping review was conducted using a comprehensive literature search of the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. The study was carried out and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA) guidance for Systematic reviews and Meta Analyses. Inclusion criteria included English language and allied health education. Exclusion criteria were outside the date range of 2011 to 2023, non-allied health programs, and clinical exposure during didactic courses. Literature reviews and commentaries were also excluded. RESULTS: A total of nineteen studies were included in the scoping review. The majority of these papers examined undergraduate programs that engaged patients in curriculum delivery while a few involved patients in feedback delivery and formal assessment. Other forms of patient involvement were through curriculum co-design. Across institutions, evidence suggested the benefits of patient involvement to students, patients, and educational programs for improved delivery of person-centred care. CONCLUSION: Patient involvement in curriculum delivery and student assessment provided valuable teaching and learning experiences for students and patients. Patient engagement also ensured that person-centered care principles were integrated into education programs. Summary of findings are provided to better prepare patients and facilitators for their role and to enhance the benefits to all participants.

Public and Patient Involvement in Migration Health Research: Eritrean and Syrian Refugees' and Asylum Seekers' Views in Switzerland.

Prior research has highlighted important healthcare access and utilization issues among new forced immigrants. We aimed to explore the role that public and patient involvement (PPI) might play in enhancing accessibility and specific contributions to migration health studies. We conducted open and in-depth interactive virtual discussions with asylum seekers and refugees from Eritrea and Syria in Switzerland. The PPI establishment consisted of three phases: inception, training and contribution. Prior to training, the concept of PPI was not straightforward to grasp, as it was a new approach-however, after training and consecutive discussions, participants were ardent to engage actively. We conclude that PPI holds promise in regard to raising awareness, improving healthcare system accessibilities and utilization, and enhancing and strengthening migration health research. Indeed, PPI volunteers were keen to raise their community's awareness through their networks and bridge an important gap between researchers and the public.

Policy brief Belgian EBCP Mirror Group patient and citizen engagement.

Rights, preferences, needs and expectations of patients and citizens can only be respected and addressed if they are well understood. As such, a continuous, systematic and formalised dialogue between patients, citizens and policy makers is required to ensure ethical and socially appropriate cancer prevention, diagnostics, treatment and care. Relying on donations and project-based funding is not a sustainable way to ensure patient involvement and representativeness in policy. Patient organizations need long term, structural support to fulfil their role as patient representatives and support network in order to deliver the best possible service and to play their role as a professional representative of their disease-specific community. Inequalities can only be tackled if they are properly identified. This requires the definition of appropriate determinants fit for (inter)national comparison and extension and linkage of good quality data registries for cancer that allow the monitoring these inequalities.

Enhancing Patient Understanding of Laboratory Test Results: Systematic Review of Presentation Formats and Their Impact on Perception, Decision, Action, and Memory.

BACKGROUND: Direct access of patients to their web-based patient portal, including laboratory test results, has become increasingly common. Numeric laboratory results can be challenging to interpret for patients, which may lead to anxiety, confusion, and unnecessary doctor consultations. Laboratory results can be presented in different formats, but there is limited evidence regarding how these presentation formats impact patients' processing of the information. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to synthesize the evidence on effective formats for presenting numeric laboratory test results with a focus on outcomes related to patients' information processing, including affective perception, perceived magnitude, cognitive perception, perception of communication, decision, action, and memory. METHODS: The search was conducted in 3 databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase) from inception until May 31, 2023. We included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods articles describing or comparing formats for presenting diagnostic laboratory test results to patients. Two reviewers independently extracted and synthesized the characteristics of the articles and presentation formats used. The quality of the included articles was assessed by 2 independent reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies were included, which were heterogeneous in terms of study design and primary outcomes used. The quality of the articles ranged from poor to excellent. Most studies (n=16, 89%) used mock test results. The most frequently used presentation formats were numerical values with reference ranges (n=12), horizontal line bars with colored blocks (n=12), or a combination of horizontal line bars with numerical values (n=8). All studies examined perception as an outcome, while action and memory were studied in 1 and 3 articles, respectively. In general, participants' satisfaction and usability were the highest when test results were presented using horizontal line bars with colored blocks. Adding reference ranges or personalized information (eg, goal ranges) further increased participants' perception. Additionally, horizontal line bars significantly decreased participants' tendency to search for information or to contact their physician, compared with numerical values with reference ranges. CONCLUSIONS: In this review, we synthesized available evidence on effective presentation formats for laboratory test results. The use of horizontal line bars with reference ranges or personalized goal ranges increased participants' cognitive perception and perception of communication while decreasing participants' tendency to contact their physicians. Action and memory were less frequently studied, so no conclusion could be drawn about a single preferred format regarding these outcomes. Therefore, the use of horizontal line bars with reference ranges or personalized goal ranges is recommended to enhance patients' information processing of laboratory test results. Further research should focus on real-life settings and diverse presentation formats in combination with outcomes related to patients' information processing.

Reflections on co-creating a model for the value assessment of artificial intelligence technologies.

AIMS: A multidisciplinary group of experts and patients developed the Model for ASsessing the value of Artificial Intelligence (MAS-AI) to ensure an evidence-based and patient-centered approach to introducing artificial intelligence technologies in healthcare. In this article, we share our experiences with meaningfully involving a patient in co-creating a research project concerning complex and technically advanced topics. METHODS: The co-creation was evaluated by means of initial reflections from the research team before the project started, in a continuous logbook, and through semi-structured interviews with patients and two researchers before and after the active co-creation phase of the project. RESULTS: There were initial doubts about the feasibility of including patients in this type of project. Co-creation ensured relevance to patients, a holistic research approach and the debate of ethical considerations. Due to one patient dropping out, it is important to foresee and support the experienced challenges of time and energy spent by the patient in future projects. Having a multidisciplinary team helped the collaboration. A mutual reflective evaluation provided insights into the process which we would otherwise have missed. CONCLUSIONS: We found it possible to create complex and data-intense research projects with patients. Including patients benefitted the project and gave researchers new perspectives on their own research. Mutual reflection throughout the project is key to maximise learning for all parties involved.

Experience of admission and readmission to the emergency department for patients with acute abdominal pain: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal pain is one of the most common complaints when patients are admitted to emergency departments (ED). Unfortunately, many of these patients are readmitted to the ED shortly after initial discharge. The perspectives of these patients have not yet been explored. PURPOSE: The study aimed to explore how patients readmitted with acute abdominal pain in the ED experienced their initial admission, the time after discharge, and the cause of readmission. METHODS: The study had a qualitative explorative design with a phenomenological-hermeneutic approach. Semi-structured individual telephone interviews were conducted with 14 patients readmitted with acute abdominal pain. RESULTS: The analysis showed four themes: 1) being vulnerable during hospitalisation, 2) the meaning of information during hospitalisation, 3) discharged without being diagnosed, and 4) readmitted in the pursuit of relief. The patients wanted more knowledge and better communication despite their vulnerable condition. Patients were discharged whilst still in pain, and uncertainty of the situation at home contributed to mistrust of the health professionals. CONCLUSION: Patients' experience of the first ED admission due to acute abdominal pain was loneliness, minimal contact with healthcare professionals, and lack of information and involvement in pain management. Discharge was associated with feelings of insignificance and contributed to a fear of death. Pain was the main reason for readmission. Patients described how multiple readmissions contributed to being taken seriously by healthcare professionals.

Use of a mobile application to monitor drain sites and surgical wounds after discharge from acute care - A feasibility study in Singapore.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to demonstrate the compliance, feasibility, and acceptability of telehealth monitoring among surgical patients discharged with wounds or drains. METHODOLOGY: This is a cross-sectional feasibility study. Post-surgical breast, plastic, and hepatobiliary patients with wounds and/or surgical drains were recruited using convenience sampling. The control group received conventional care which consisted of daily telephone follow-up. The intervention group used a mobile wound application to take wound and drain images, report drainage amount and symptoms. Compliance was assessed by measuring the percentage of actual to expected patient entries, feasibility was assessed by comparing detection of abnormalities and unexpected hospital visits, and acceptability was assessed by subjective feedback from nurses and patients from the intervention group. RESULTS: 59 patients were recruited, with 30 patients in the control group and 29 patients in the intervention group. 9 specialty nurses were involved in the patients' post-discharge care. The mean compliance rate for the hepatobiliary, breast and plastic patients were 89.9 %, 89.5 % and 75.9 % respectively. 4 patients from the intervention group (13.8 %) and 6 patients from the control group (20.1 %) were flagged as having potential abnormalities. As for unexpected hospital visits, there were 2 (6.9 %) in the intervention group and 1 (3.4 %) in the control group. 25 patients and 9 specialty nurses responded to the feedback survey. 22 patients (88 %) did not face any application issues. 18 patients (72 %) preferred to self-report symptoms via the application rather than to call the nurses and reported feeling safe knowing that they are remotely monitored. Most nurses found the app convenient and timesaving (n = 7, 78 %), with monitoring through pictures as more accurate than phone conversation (n = 8, 89 %). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that use of a mobile application by surgical patients discharged with wounds or drains is feasible and serves as a viable monitoring tool.

Stakeholders' perspectives on patient involvement in systematic reviews - Results of a World Café in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Patient involvement (PI) in systematic reviews (SRs) can help to improve the quality of SRs and enhance the credibility of the research process. At the same time, PI in SRs poses challenges such as the need for extra time. While several organizations and working groups from English-speaking countries provide recommendations for PI in SRs, there is a lack of current insights from stakeholders in Germany, including researchers and patients. Eliciting their perspectives is indicated, as PI in SRs in Germany might differ due to language barriers and organizational dissimilarities. For sharing and discussing stakeholders' experiences in Germany, a workshop was facilitated. This paper summarizes the results of the workshop to elucidate stakeholders' perspectives on key aspects of PI in SRs in Germany. METHODS: A World Café was conducted at the 2023 conference of the Network for Evidence-based Medicine. Participants at all levels of experience could take part without prior registration. The data obtained was summarized narratively in an iterative process, and a framework of the topics discussed was developed. RESULTS: 22 participants, predominantly researchers, took part. Participants formulated several general conditions for PI in SRs such as time and transparency. The majority of the tasks described referred to the application phase and the initial phase of a SR. The development of training and information materials in plain German language was deemed essential. The application phase of an externally funded SR and patient recruitment were considered as particularly challenging. DISCUSSION: Several of the formulated aspects such as time and transparency are consistent with earlier work. The project start of a SR, however, has so far not been explicitly described in the literature as being of particular importance. This phase might be even more crucial to SR projects in Germany since researchers are expected to develop information materials for patients. Both the application phase and patient recruitment could be considered particularly challenging due to a lower degree of organisation of PI in Germany. CONCLUSION: World Café participants described many aspects referring to the project start of a SR. This underlines that PI in SRs needs to be described as a process. A process model intertwining the phases of a SR with the respective phases of PI, ideally including best practices for each phase, could be of great value. With respect to the specific context in Germany, a greater degree of organization of PI, i.e. coordinated by an institution, could help to manage challenges such as patient recruitment.

Shared decision-making endorses intention to follow through treatment or vaccination recommendations: a multi-method survey study among older adults.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that shared decision-making (SDM) between a practitioner and a patient strengthens the ideal of treatment adherence. This study employed a multi-method approach to SDM in healthcare to reinforce the theoretical and methodological grounds of this argument. As the study design, self-reported survey items and experimental vignettes were combined in one electronic questionnaire. This technique aimed to analyze the effects of previous experiences and the current preferences regarding SDM on the intentions to follow-through with the medical recommendations. METHOD: Using quantitative data collected from the members of the Finnish Pensioners' Federation (N = 1610), this study focused on the important and growing population of older adults as healthcare consumers. Illustrated vignettes were used in the evaluation of expected adherence to both vaccination and the treatment of an illness, depending on the decision-making style varying among the repeated scenarios. In a within-subjects study design, each study subject acted as their own control. RESULTS: The findings demonstrated that SDM correlates with expected adherence to a treatment and vaccination. Both the retrospective experiences and prospective aspirations of SDM in clinical encounters supported the patients' expected adherence to vaccination and treatment while decreasing the probability of pseudo-compliance. The association between SDM and expected adherence was not affected by the perceived health of the respondents. However, the associations among the expected adherence and decision-making styles were found to differ between the treatment and vaccination scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: SDM enables expected treatment adherence among older adults. Thus, the multi-method study emphasizes the importance of SDM in various healthcare encounters. The findings further imply that SDM research benefits from questionnaires combining self-report methods and experimental study designs. Further cross-validation studies using various types of written and illustrated scenarios are encouraged.

Patient-Led Research to Develop a Training Programme for Restoring Musical Joy in Cochlear Implant Recipients: A Reflexive Process Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The role of patients in healthcare research is slowly evolving, although patient roles in the research process are limited. This paper reports on a patient-led research project aiming to develop a musical hearing training programme for patients with a cochlear implant (CI): the Musi-CI programme. A CI is an inner ear prosthesis that allows people with severe hearing loss to hear. However, while speech can be understood, CI users cannot fully enjoy music or feel aversion to it. The Musi-CI programme aims to reduce this music aversion to ultimately improve music enjoyment and social participation. The development of the Musi-CI programme was supported by a consortium of professionals in CI rehabilitation and research. The aim of this paper is to describe and evaluate the Musi-CI programme development process and its impact on professional CI rehabilitation and research. METHODS: Programme development was described using a 3-layered process model of action research, distinguishing the CI user process, the healthcare professional process and the research process. To evaluate perceptions on the programme development process, consortium partners provided written comments and participated in a reflexive evaluation session that was video-recorded. Reflexive evaluation aims for collective learning and strengthening collaboration among participants. Written comments and video data were analysed using template analysis. RESULTS: The involvement of an expert by experience was perceived as challenging but rewarding for all consortium partners, opening up new perspectives on CI-rehabilitation practice and research. Data analysis revealed two themes on the programme development process, professional space and acknowledgement, and two themes on the outcomes on CI rehabilitation and research: critical reflection and paradigm shift. CONCLUSION: Experts by experience represent a different knowledge domain that may contribute to change in rehabilitation and research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The development of the programme was initiated by a professional musician and CI user who organized the funding, had a leading role throughout the research process, including the write-up of the results, and co-authored this paper.