• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

评估与患者共同制定的医院工具和服务:快速审查。

Evaluating hospital tools and services that were co-produced with patients: A rapid review.

机构信息

Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash University, 43-51 Kanooka Grove, Clayton, Melbourne, VIC 3168, Australia.

出版信息

Int J Qual Health Care. 2020 Jun 4;32(4):231-239. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzaa020.

DOI:10.1093/intqhc/mzaa020
PMID:32222757
Abstract

PURPOSE

To describe the process and outcomes of services or products co-produced with patients in hospital settings.

DATA SOURCES

Database searches on Medline, CINAHL and Business Source between 2008 and 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies that evaluate the products of co-production in hospital settings.

DATA EXTRACTION

Primary outcome is the individual and organizational outcomes resulting from co-production. Study characteristics, co-production process, level of engagement and intensity of engagement were also extracted.

RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 13 studies were included. Types of co-produced outputs were health services and care processes, tools and resources, and technology-based products, such as mobile application. Most studies engaged patients at a consultative or involvement level, with only four studies engaging patients as partners. Moderate-to-high acceptability and usability by patients and health services were reported for co-produced outputs. Organizational outcomes were also reported qualitatively as producing various positive effects, such as improved communication and diagnostic process. Positive patient outcomes were reported for co-produced outputs in qualitative (e.g. improved social support) and quantitative results (e.g. reduction of clinic wait time). No patient clinical outcomes were reported.

CONCLUSION

Co-produced outputs have moderate-to-high acceptability, usability or uptake. There is insufficient evidence on other organizational or patient outcomes due to the lack of reporting of outcomes in co-production. Future research should focus on the outcomes (i.e. effects on patients and health service providers), not just the output of co-production. This is critical to provide feedback to advance the knowledge and implementation of co-production.

摘要

目的

描述在医院环境中与患者共同生产的服务或产品的过程和结果。

资料来源

2008 年至 2019 年在 Medline、CINAHL 和 Business Source 数据库中进行的数据库检索。

研究选择

评估医院环境中共同生产产品的研究。

资料提取

主要结果是共同生产产生的个人和组织结果。还提取了研究特征、共同生产过程、参与程度和参与强度。

数据综合结果

共纳入 13 项研究。共同生产的产出类型为卫生服务和护理流程、工具和资源以及基于技术的产品,如移动应用程序。大多数研究以咨询或参与的方式让患者参与,只有四项研究让患者作为合作伙伴参与。报告了患者和卫生服务提供者对共同生产产出的接受度和可用性为中等至高度。还定性地报告了组织结果,例如改善沟通和诊断过程。报告了共同生产产出对患者的积极结果,包括定性的(例如,改善社会支持)和定量的结果(例如,减少诊所等待时间)。没有报告患者的临床结果。

结论

共同生产的产出具有中等至高度的可接受性、可用性或采用率。由于缺乏共同生产结果的报告,因此组织或患者其他结果的证据不足。未来的研究应侧重于结果(即对患者和卫生服务提供者的影响),而不仅仅是共同生产的产出。这对于提供反馈以推进共同生产的知识和实施至关重要。

相似文献

1
Evaluating hospital tools and services that were co-produced with patients: A rapid review.评估与患者共同制定的医院工具和服务:快速审查。
Int J Qual Health Care. 2020 Jun 4;32(4):231-239. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzaa020.
2
The patient experience of patient-centered communication with nurses in the hospital setting: a qualitative systematic review protocol.医院环境中患者与护士以患者为中心的沟通体验:一项定性系统评价方案
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):76-87. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1072.
3
Promoting and supporting self-management for adults living in the community with physical chronic illness: A systematic review of the effectiveness and meaningfulness of the patient-practitioner encounter.促进和支持社区中患有慢性身体疾病的成年人进行自我管理:对医患互动的有效性和意义的系统评价。
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009;7(13):492-582. doi: 10.11124/01938924-200907130-00001.
4
Health professionals' experience of teamwork education in acute hospital settings: a systematic review of qualitative literature.医疗专业人员在急症医院环境中团队合作教育的经验:对定性文献的系统综述
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Apr;14(4):96-137. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-1843.
5
Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of day care for people with severe mental disorders: (1) acute day hospital versus admission; (2) vocational rehabilitation; (3) day hospital versus outpatient care.针对重度精神障碍患者日间护理效果的系统评价:(1)急性日间医院与住院治疗对比;(2)职业康复;(3)日间医院与门诊护理对比。
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(21):1-75. doi: 10.3310/hta5210.
6
How has the impact of 'care pathway technologies' on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect?“护理路径技术”对卒中护理服务整合的影响是如何衡量的,以及有哪些证据支持其在这方面的有效性?
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2008 Mar;6(1):78-110. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1609.2007.00098.x.
7
What outcomes are associated with developing and implementing co-produced interventions in acute healthcare settings? A rapid evidence synthesis.在急性医疗环境中开发和实施共同生产的干预措施会带来哪些结果?一项快速证据综合分析。
BMJ Open. 2017 Jul 11;7(7):e014650. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014650.
8
The Effectiveness of Integrated Care Pathways for Adults and Children in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.综合护理路径在医疗环境中对成人和儿童的有效性:一项系统评价。
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009;7(3):80-129. doi: 10.11124/01938924-200907030-00001.
9
10
Telemedicine for the Medicare population: pediatric, obstetric, and clinician-indirect home interventions.面向医疗保险人群的远程医疗:儿科、产科及临床医生间接居家干预措施
Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 2001 Aug(24 Suppl):1-32.

引用本文的文献

1
Co-production in practice: A qualitative study of the development of advance care planning workshops for South Asian elders.实践中的共同生产:关于为南亚老年人开展预先护理计划工作坊发展情况的定性研究
Palliat Med. 2025 Jan;39(1):126-138. doi: 10.1177/02692163241302678. Epub 2024 Dec 8.
2
Optimising HIV care using information obtained from PROMs: protocol for an observational study.利用患者报告结局(PROMs)获取的信息优化艾滋病毒护理:一项观察性研究方案。
BMJ Open. 2023 Nov 27;13(11):e073758. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073758.
3
Measurement and outcomes of co-production in health and social care: a systematic review of empirical studies.
卫生和社会保健中共同生产的测量和结果:实证研究的系统评价。
BMJ Open. 2023 Sep 22;13(9):e073808. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073808.
4
Co-creation of self-management support during inpatient stroke rehabilitation.住院脑卒中康复期间自我管理支持的共同创造
PEC Innov. 2023 Jul 10;3:100191. doi: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2023.100191. eCollection 2023 Dec 15.
5
Dancing for Parkinson's Disease Online: Clinical Trial Process Evaluation.帕金森病在线舞蹈疗法:临床试验过程评估
Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Feb 17;11(4):604. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11040604.
6
Patient experiences of codesigned rehabilitation interventions in hospitals: a rapid review.患者在医院参与康复干预的体验:快速综述。
BMJ Open. 2022 Nov 4;12(11):e068241. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068241.
7
Implementing PROMS for elective surgery patients: feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability.对择期手术患者实施患者报告结局测量:可行性、回复率、恢复程度及患者可接受性。
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2022 Jul 7;6(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s41687-022-00483-6.
8
Co-production practice and future research priorities in United Kingdom-funded applied health research: a scoping review.英国资助的应用健康研究中的共同生产实践和未来研究重点:范围综述。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2022 Apr 2;20(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s12961-022-00838-x.
9
Patient experiences of co-designed rehabilitation interventions: protocol for a rapid review.患者对共同设计的康复干预措施的体验:快速综述方案。
BMJ Open. 2022 Jan 31;12(1):e056927. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056927.
10
Implementing and evaluating co-designed change in health.实施和评估共同设计的健康变革。
J R Soc Med. 2022 Feb;115(2):48-51. doi: 10.1177/01410768211070206. Epub 2022 Jan 20.