Truus Teunissen1, Merel Visse, Pim de Boer, Tineke A Abma. 1. Researcher, Department of Medical Humanities, VU University Medical CenterPolicy Advisor, Astma Foundation, AmersfoortHead Research, Astma Foundation, AmersfoortProfessorSenior Researcher, Department of Medical Humanities, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this review is to generate an inventory of issues that matter from a patient perspective in health research and quality of care. From these issues, criteria will be elicited to support patient(s) (groups) in their role as advisor or advocate when appraising health research, health policy and quality of health care. BACKGROUND: Literature shows that patients are beginning to develop their own voice and agenda's with issues in order to be prepared for the collaboration with professionals. Yet, patient issues have not been investigated systematically. This review addresses what patients find important and help to derive patient criteria for appraising research and quality of care. METHODS/SEARCH STRATEGY: Information was gathered from Western countries with similar economic, societal and health-care situations. We searched (from January 2000 to March 2010) for primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary sources; non-scientific publications were also included. RESULTS: The international inventory of issues that were defined by patients is covering a large array of domains. In total, 35 issue clusters further referred to as criteria were found ranging from dignity to cost effectiveness and family involvement. Issues from a patient perspective reveal patient values and appear to be adding to professional issues. CONCLUSIONS: Patient issues cover a broad domain, including fundamental values, quality of life, quality of care and personal development. Quite a few issues do not find its reflection in the scientific literature in spite of their clear and obvious appearance from tertiary sources. This may indicate a gap between the scientific research community and patient networks.
AIM: The purpose of this review is to generate an inventory of issues that matter from a patient perspective in health research and quality of care. From these issues, criteria will be elicited to support patient(s) (groups) in their role as advisor or advocate when appraising health research, health policy and quality of health care. BACKGROUND: Literature shows that patients are beginning to develop their own voice and agenda's with issues in order to be prepared for the collaboration with professionals. Yet, patient issues have not been investigated systematically. This review addresses what patients find important and help to derive patient criteria for appraising research and quality of care. METHODS/SEARCH STRATEGY: Information was gathered from Western countries with similar economic, societal and health-care situations. We searched (from January 2000 to March 2010) for primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary sources; non-scientific publications were also included. RESULTS: The international inventory of issues that were defined by patients is covering a large array of domains. In total, 35 issue clusters further referred to as criteria were found ranging from dignity to cost effectiveness and family involvement. Issues from a patient perspective reveal patient values and appear to be adding to professional issues. CONCLUSIONS:Patient issues cover a broad domain, including fundamental values, quality of life, quality of care and personal development. Quite a few issues do not find its reflection in the scientific literature in spite of their clear and obvious appearance from tertiary sources. This may indicate a gap between the scientific research community and patient networks.
Authors: S Oliver; L Clarke-Jones; R Rees; R Milne; P Buchanan; J Gabbay; G Gyte; A Oakley; K Stein Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Ellen Uiters; Liset van Dijk; Walter Devillé; Marleen Foets; Peter Spreeuwenberg; Peter P Groenewegen Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2006-09-13 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Susan S Ellenberg; Richard Culbertson; Daniel L Gillen; Steven Goodman; Suzanne Schrandt; Maryan Zirkle Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Laura B Portalupi; Carmen L Lewis; Carl D Miller; Kerry L Whiteman-Jones; Kay A Sather; Donald E Nease; Daniel D Matlock Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: J Daniel Prados-Torres; Alexandra Prados-Torres; Isabel Del Cura-González; Juan A López-Rodríguez; Francisca Leiva-Fernández; Luis A Gimeno-Feliu; Victoria Pico-Soler; Mª Josefa Bujalance-Zafra; Miguel Domínguez-Santaella; Elena Polentinos-Castro; Beatriz Poblador-Plou; Paula Ara-Bardají; Mercedes Aza-Pascual-Salcedo; Marisa Rogero-Blanco; Marcos Castillo-Jiménez; Cristina Lozano-Hernández; Antonio Gimeno-Miguel; Francisca González-Rubio; Rodrigo Medina-García; Alba González-Hevilla; Mario Gil-Conesa; Jesús Martín-Fernández; José M Valderas; Alessandra Marengoni; Christiane Muth Journal: Trials Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Jayna Holroyd-Leduc; Joyce Resin; Lisa Ashley; Doris Barwich; Jacobi Elliott; Paul Huras; France Légaré; Megan Mahoney; Alies Maybee; Heather McNeil; Daryl Pullman; Richard Sawatzky; Paul Stolee; John Muscedere Journal: Res Involv Engagem Date: 2016-06-17
Authors: Suzanne Rutz; Hester van de Bovenkamp; Simone Buitendijk; Paul Robben; Antoinette de Bont Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-04-02 Impact factor: 2.655