1
|
Munthe-Kaas HM, Oxman AD, von Lieres B, Gloppen S, Ohren A. Public participation in decisions about measures to manage the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. BMJ Glob Health 2024; 9:e014404. [PMID: 38830748 PMCID: PMC11149118 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014404] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2023] [Accepted: 04/25/2024] [Indexed: 06/05/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments and health authorities faced tough decisions about infection prevention and control measures such as social distancing, face masks and travel. Judgements underlying those decisions require democratic input, as well as expert input. The aim of this review is to inform decisions about how best to achieve public participation in decisions about public health and social interventions in the context of a pandemic or other public health emergencies. OBJECTIVES To systematically review examples of public participation in decisions by governments and health authorities about how to control the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN We searched Participedia and relevant databases in August 2022. Two authors reviewed titles and abstracts and one author screened publications promoted to full text. One author extracted data from included reports using a standard data-extraction form. A second author checked 10% of the extraction forms. We conducted a structured synthesis using framework analysis. RESULTS We included 24 reports (18 from Participedia). Most took place in high-income countries (n=23), involved 'consulting' the public (n=17) and involved public meetings (usually online). Two initiatives reported explicit support for critical thinking. 11 initiatives were formally evaluated (only three reported impacts). Many initiatives did not contribute to a decision, and 17 initiatives did not include any explicit decision-making criteria. CONCLUSIONS Decisions about how to manage the COVID-19 pandemic affected nearly everyone. While public participation in those decisions had the potential to improve the quality of the judgements and decisions that were made, build trust, improve adherence and help ensure transparency and accountability, few examples of such initiatives have been reported and most of those have not been formally evaluated. Identified initiatives did point out potential good practices related to online engagement, crowdsourcing and addressing potential power imbalance. Future research should address improved reporting of initiatives, explicit decision-making criteria, support for critical thinking, engagement of marginalised groups and decision-makers and communication with the public. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER 358991.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Andrew D Oxman
- Centre for Epidemic Interventions Research, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
| | - Bettina von Lieres
- Department of Global Development Studies, University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Siri Gloppen
- Centre on Law & Social Transformation, Department of Government, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Arild Ohren
- Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Pollock DK, Khalil H, Evans C, Godfrey C, Pieper D, Alexander L, Tricco AC, McInerney P, Peters MDJ, Klugar M, Falavigna M, Stein AT, Qaseem A, de Moraes EB, Saran A, Ding S, Barker TH, Florez ID, Jia RM, Munn Z. The role of scoping reviews in guideline development. J Clin Epidemiol 2024; 169:111301. [PMID: 38423402 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111301] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2023] [Revised: 01/29/2024] [Accepted: 02/19/2024] [Indexed: 03/02/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Danielle Kelly Pollock
- Health Evidence Synthesis, Recommendations and Impact (HESRI), School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
| | - Hanan Khalil
- Department of Public Health, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Catrin Evans
- The Nottingham Centre for Evidence Based Healthcare, School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Christina Godfrey
- Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Queen's University School of Nursing, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Dawid Pieper
- Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School, Brandenburg, Germany; Center for Health Services Research Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School, Brandenburg, Germany
| | - Lyndsay Alexander
- Scottish Centre for Evidence-Based, Multi-Professional Practice: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Aberdeen, Scotland; School of Health Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Andrea C Tricco
- Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Queen's University School of Nursing, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Epidemiology Division and Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Patricia McInerney
- The Wits-JBI Centre for Evidence-Based Practice: A JBI Centre of Excellence, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
| | - Micah D J Peters
- Health Evidence Synthesis, Recommendations and Impact (HESRI), School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; University of South Australia, UniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, Rosemary Bryant AO Research Centre, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; Adelaide Nursing School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (Federal Office), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Miloslav Klugar
- Cochrane Czech Republic, Czech Republic: a JBI Centre of Excellence, Czech GRADE Network, Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic, Palackého náměstí 4, 128 01 Prague 2, Prague, Czech Republic; Center of Evidence-Based Education and Arts Therapies: A JBI Affiliated Group, Palacky University Olomouc Faculty of Education, Olomouc, Olomoucký, Czech Republic
| | - Maicon Falavigna
- National Institute for Health Technology Assessment, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | | | - Amir Qaseem
- American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Erica Brandão de Moraes
- Department of Nursing Fundamentals and Administration, Nursing School, Federal Fluminense University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; The Brazilian Centre of Evidence-Based Healthcare: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Ashrita Saran
- Global Development Network, New Delhi, India; The Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods Group, New Delhi, India
| | - Sandrine Ding
- Department of Radiologic Medical Imaging Technology, HESAV School of Health Sciences (HESAV), University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland (HES-SO), Lausanne, Switzerland; Bureau d'Echange des Savoirs pour des praTiques exemplaires de soins (BEST): A JBI Centre of Excellence, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Timothy Hugh Barker
- Health Evidence Synthesis, Recommendations and Impact (HESRI), School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Ivan D Florez
- Department of Pediatrics, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia; School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Clinica Las Americas-AUNA, Medellin, Colombia
| | - Romy Menghao Jia
- JBI, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Science, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Zachary Munn
- Health Evidence Synthesis, Recommendations and Impact (HESRI), School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Dardess P, Dokken DL, Unaka NI, Casillas CA, Rouse L, Patel U, Rodriguez LR, Beck AF. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Patient and Family Advisory Councils: Advancing Best Practice in Children's Hospitals. J Pediatr Health Care 2024; 38:184-193. [PMID: 38429030 DOI: 10.1016/j.pedhc.2023.11.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2023] [Revised: 09/29/2023] [Accepted: 11/18/2023] [Indexed: 03/03/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION This qualitative research study explored practices that support and advance diverse membership in Patient and Family Advisory Councils (PFACs) in children's hospitals and the involvement of PFACs in organization-level diversity, equity, and inclusion work. METHOD This study consisted of a focused literature review and 17 key informant interviews. The study sought to identify important learnings about (1) recruiting and supporting patient and family advisors (PFAs) from historically marginalized populations and (2) ways to develop and sustain meaningful partnerships with PFAs and PFACs in diversity, equity, and inclusion work. RESULTS The study findings highlighted a number of best practices for hospitals to adopt, including more actively reaching out to communities served, addressing barriers to participation through approaches and structures such as specialty PFACs and "tiered" options for participation by PFAs, and co-creation of inclusive environments. DISCUSSION To move forward with this work, additional research, true commitment from health care organizations, and shared guidance and tools for the field are needed.
Collapse
|
4
|
Schladitz K, Weitzel EC, Löbner M, Soltmann B, Jessen F, Schmitt J, Pfennig A, Riedel-Heller SG, Gühne U. [How Successful is the Participation of People with Mental Illness and Family Members in the Development of Evidence- and Consensus-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines? Results of a Survey in Psychiatry]. PSYCHIATRISCHE PRAXIS 2023. [PMID: 38134904 DOI: 10.1055/a-2201-7987] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The study examines how successful the participation of people with mental illness and family members is currently in the development of psychiatric guidelines. METHODS Survey results of N=561 (Response 37%) guideline developers are analyzed. RESULTS Involvement of affected individuals succeeds more often than that of family members (61% vs. 55%). 68% felt that this participation was central to successful guideline development. 51% perceived discrepancies between empirical evidence and experience perspective. 33-36% perceived a lack of appreciation of experience expertise, 37% an insufficient representation and 46% an inequality in consensus building. 45% did not see barriers effectively removed. CONCLUSION There remain challenges in the participation of people with mental illness and family members. There is an increasing awareness that their participation is central.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katja Schladitz
- Institut für Sozialmedizin, Arbeitsmedizin und Public Health, Universität Leipzig, Medizinische Fakultät, Leipzig
| | - Elena Caroline Weitzel
- Institut für Sozialmedizin, Arbeitsmedizin und Public Health, Universität Leipzig, Medizinische Fakultät, Leipzig
| | - Margrit Löbner
- Institut für Sozialmedizin, Arbeitsmedizin und Public Health, Universität Leipzig, Medizinische Fakultät, Leipzig
| | - Bettina Soltmann
- Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, TU Dresden
| | - Frank Jessen
- Medizinische Fakultät und Uniklinik Köln, Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Universität Köln
| | - Jochen Schmitt
- Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, Zentrum für Evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung (ZEGV), TU Dresden
| | - Andrea Pfennig
- Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, TU Dresden
| | - Steffi G Riedel-Heller
- Institut für Sozialmedizin, Arbeitsmedizin und Public Health, Universität Leipzig, Medizinische Fakultät, Leipzig
| | - Uta Gühne
- Institut für Sozialmedizin, Arbeitsmedizin und Public Health, Universität Leipzig, Medizinische Fakultät, Leipzig
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 2: consumer engagement in living guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 2022; 155:97-107. [PMID: 36592876 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.12.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2022] [Revised: 12/08/2022] [Accepted: 12/21/2022] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To describe and reflect on the consumer engagement approaches used in five living guidelines from the perspectives of consumers (i.e., patients, carers, the public, and their representatives) and guideline developers. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING In a descriptive report, we used a template to capture engagement approaches and the experiences of consumers and guideline developers in living guidelines in Australia and the United Kingdom. Responses were summarized using descriptive synthesis. RESULTS One guideline used a Consumer Panel, three included two to three consumers in the guideline development group, and one did both. Much of our experience was common to all guidelines (e.g., consumers felt welcomed but that their role initially lacked clarity). We identified six challenges and opportunities specific to living guidelines: managing the flow of work; managing engagement in online environments; managing membership of the panel; facilitating more flexibility, variety and depth in engagement; recruiting for specific skills-although these can be built over time; developing living processes to improve; and adapting consumer engagement together. CONCLUSION Consumer engagement in living guidelines should follow established principles of consumer engagement in guidelines. Conceiving the engagement as living, underpinned by a living process evaluation, allows the approach to be developed with consumers over time.
Collapse
|