Outlining the role of experiential expertise in professional work in health care service co-production

Dialogued into being: Constructing knowledge about hand osteoarthritis from a polyphony of voices in healthcare encounters

PURPOSE

Multiple knowledge sources inform healthcare. In healthcare encounters, patients and health professionals' ideas intersect to understand illness and disease. Exploring what is thought of as legitimate knowledge, and where those reflections come from is central to the process of improving and developing healthcare. Within this context, we aim to explore how knowledge about hand osteoarthritis (OA) is constructed and negotiated in clinical consultations.

METHODOLOGY

The article is based on interviews with 21 patients and 14 health professionals in combination with observation in 16 clinical consultations. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to interpret the data.

RESULTS

We generated four themes from codes to tell an interpretive story about how hand OA meaning-making is "talked into being" in patient-provider encounters: from the dominant voice of health professionals, from patients as knowers in the chronic healthcare dialogue, from health professionals and patients constructing knowledge together and from the construction of knowledge in hybrid positions when patients are health professionals and health professionals have hand OA.

CONCLUSION

New knowledge about hand OA is co-constructed in the situated context of the clinical encounter through a polyphony of voices-some of which are dominant, while others occupy the periphery-within and between the interactants in dialgue.

Mapping the role of patient and public involvement during the different stages of healthcare innovation: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become increasingly important in the development, delivery and improvement of healthcare. PPI is used in healthcare innovation; yet, how it is used has been under-reported. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and map the current available empirical evidence on the role of PPI during different stages of healthcare innovation.

METHODS

The scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMAScR and included any study published in a peer-reviewed journal between 2004 and 2021 that reported on PPI in healthcare innovation within any healthcare setting or context in any country. The following databases were searched: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, HMIC and Google Scholar. We included any study type, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies. We excluded theoretical frameworks, conceptual, scientific or grey literature as well as discussion and opinion papers.

RESULTS

Of the 87 included studies, 81 (93%) focused on or were conducted by authors in developed countries. A wide range of conditions were considered, with more studies focusing on mental health (n = 18, 21%) and cancer care (n = 8, 9%). The vast majority of the studies focused on process and service innovations (n = 62, 71%). Seven studies focused on technological and clinical innovations (8%), while 12 looked at both technological and service innovations (14%). Only five studies examined systems innovation (5%) and one study looked across all types of innovations (1%). PPI is more common in the earlier stages of innovation, particularly problem identification and invention, in comparison to adoption and diffusion.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare innovation tends to be a lengthy process. Yet, our study highlights that PPI is more common across earlier stages of innovation and focuses mostly on service innovation. Stronger PPI in later stages could support the adoption and diffusion of innovation.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

One of the coauthors of the paper (S. S.) is a service user with extensive experience in PPI research. S. S. supported the analysis and writing up of the paper.