Department of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Department of Pediatrics, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Jul;34(7):1292-1303. doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4565-9. Epub 2018 Jul 26.
Patient-centeredness is a characteristic of high-quality medical care and requires engaging community members in health systems' decision-making. One key patient engagement strategy is patient, family, and community advisory boards/councils (PFACs), yet the evidence to guide PFACs is lacking. Systematic reviews on patient engagement may benefit from patient input, but feasibility is unclear.
A team of physicians, researchers, and a PFAC member conducted a systematic review to examine the impact of PFACs on health systems and describe optimal strategies for PFAC conduct. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and Social Science Citation Index from inception through September 2016, as well as pre-identified websites. Two reviewers independently screened and abstracted data from studies, then assessed randomized studies for risk of bias and observational studies for quality using standardized measures. We performed a realist synthesis-which asks what works, for whom, under what circumstances-of abstracted data via 12 monthly meetings between investigators and two feedback sessions with a hospital-based PFAC.
Eighteen articles describing 16 studies met study criteria. Randomized studies demonstrated moderate to high risk of bias and observational studies demonstrated poor to fair quality. Studies engaged patients at multiple levels of the health care system and suggested that in-person deliberation with health system leadership was most effective. Studies involving patient engagement in research focused on increasing study participation. PFAC recruitment was by nomination (n = 11) or not described (n = 5). No common measure of patient, family, or community engagement was identified. Realist synthesis was enriched by feedback from PFAC members.
PFACs engage communities through individual projects but evidence of their impact on outcomes is lacking. A paucity of randomized controlled trials or high-quality observational studies guide strategies for engagement through PFACs. Standardized measurement tools for engagement are needed. Strategies for PFAC recruitment should be investigated and reported. PFAC members can feasibly contribute to systematic reviews.
A protocol for record eligibility was developed a priori and was registered in the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (registration number CRD42016052817). The Department of Veterans Affairs' Office of Academic Affiliations, through the National Clinician Scholars Program, funded this study.
以患者为中心是高质量医疗的特征,需要让社区成员参与医疗系统的决策。患者、家庭和社区顾问委员会/理事会(PFAC)是一种关键的患者参与策略,但缺乏指导 PFAC 的证据。系统评价可能受益于患者的投入,但可行性尚不清楚。
一组医生、研究人员和一名 PFAC 成员进行了一项系统评价,以研究 PFAC 对卫生系统的影响,并描述 PFAC 实施的最佳策略。我们从成立之初到 2016 年 9 月,在 MEDLINE、Embase、PsycINFO、CINAHL、Scopus 和社会科学引文索引以及预先确定的网站上进行了搜索。两名审查员独立筛选和提取研究数据,然后使用标准化措施评估随机研究的偏倚风险和观察性研究的质量。我们通过每月 12 次的研究人员会议和两次与医院 PFAC 的反馈会议,对摘要数据进行了真实主义综合分析-询问什么有效,对谁有效,在什么情况下有效。
有 18 篇文章描述了 16 项研究符合研究标准。随机研究显示出中等到高偏倚风险,而观察性研究则显示出较差到一般的质量。这些研究让患者参与了医疗保健系统的多个层面,并表明与卫生系统领导进行面对面的讨论最有效。涉及患者参与研究的研究主要集中在增加研究参与度上。PFAC 的招募是通过提名(n=11)或未描述(n=5)进行的。没有确定共同的患者、家庭或社区参与衡量标准。PFAC 成员的反馈丰富了真实主义综合分析。
PFAC 通过个人项目来参与社区,但缺乏关于它们对结果影响的证据。缺乏随机对照试验或高质量的观察性研究来指导通过 PFAC 进行参与的策略。需要标准化的参与衡量工具。应研究并报告 PFAC 招募策略。PFAC 成员可以切实为系统评价做出贡献。
事先制定了记录资格的方案,并在系统评价的 PROSPERO 数据库中注册(注册号 CRD42016052817)。退伍军人事务部学术附属机构通过国家临床学者计划为这项研究提供资金。