Lloyd Nicola, Kenny Amanda, Hyett Nerida
Violet Vines Marshman Centre for Rural Health Research, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Australia.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Apr 20;21(1):364. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06319-1.
Internationally, it is expected that health services will involve the public in health service design. Evaluation of public involvement has typically focused on the process and experiences for participants. Less is known about outcomes for health services. The aim of this systematic review was to a) identify and synthesise what is known about health service outcomes of public involvement and b) document how outcomes were evaluated.
Searches were undertaken in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL for studies that reported health service outcomes from public involvement in health service design. The review was limited to high-income countries and studies in English. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and critical appraisal guidelines for assessing the quality and impact of user involvement in health research. Content analysis was used to determine the outcomes of public involvement in health service design and how outcomes were evaluated.
A total of 93 articles were included. The majority were published in the last 5 years, were qualitative, and were located in the United Kingdom. A range of health service outcomes (discrete products, improvements to health services and system/policy level changes) were reported at various levels (service level, across services, and across organisations). However, evaluations of outcomes were reported in less than half of studies. In studies where outcomes were evaluated, a range of methods were used; most frequent were mixed methods. The quality of study design and reporting was inconsistent.
When reporting public involvement in health service design authors outline a range of outcomes for health services, but it is challenging to determine the extent of outcomes due to inadequate descriptions of study design and poor reporting. There is an urgent need for evaluations, including longitudinal study designs and cost-benefit analyses, to fully understand outcomes from public involvement in health service design.
在国际上,人们期望卫生服务能让公众参与到卫生服务设计中。对公众参与的评估通常聚焦于参与者的过程和体验。而对于卫生服务的结果了解较少。本系统评价的目的是:a)识别并综合关于公众参与卫生服务设计的卫生服务结果的已知信息;b)记录结果是如何评估的。
在MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆、PsycINFO、科学引文索引和护理学与健康领域数据库中检索报告公众参与卫生服务设计的卫生服务结果的研究。该评价限于高收入国家和英文研究。使用混合方法评估工具和评估用户参与卫生研究的质量及影响的批判性评价指南评估研究质量。采用内容分析法确定公众参与卫生服务设计的结果以及结果是如何评估的。
共纳入93篇文章。大多数文章发表于过去5年,为定性研究,且来自英国。在不同层面(服务层面、跨服务层面和跨组织层面)报告了一系列卫生服务结果(离散产品、卫生服务改进以及系统/政策层面变化)。然而,不到一半的研究报告了结果评估情况。在报告了结果评估的研究中,使用了多种方法;最常用的是混合方法。研究设计和报告的质量参差不齐。
在报告公众参与卫生服务设计时,作者概述了一系列卫生服务结果,但由于研究设计描述不足和报告不佳,难以确定结果的程度。迫切需要进行评估,包括纵向研究设计和成本效益分析,以全面了解公众参与卫生服务设计的结果。