Ann Catrine Eldh1,2, Kristina Luhr3,4, Margareta Ehnfors3. 1. Division of Nursing, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 2. School of Education, Health and Social Studies, Dalarna University, Falun, Sweden. 3. School of Health and Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden. 4. Family Medicine Research Centre, Örebro County Council, Örebro, Sweden.
Abstract
AIMS: To report on the development and initial testing of a clinical tool, The Patient Preferences for Patient Participation tool (The 4Ps), which will allow patients to depict, prioritize, and evaluate their participation in health care. BACKGROUND: While patient participation is vital for high quality health care, a common definition incorporating all stakeholders' experience is pending. In order to support participation in health care, a tool for determining patients' preferences on participation is proposed, including opportunities to evaluate participation while considering patient preferences. METHODS: Exploratory mixed methods studies informed the development of the tool, and descriptive design guided its initial testing. The 4Ps tool was tested with 21 Swedish researcher experts (REs) and patient experts (PEs) with experience of patient participation. Individual Think Aloud interviews were employed to capture experiences of content, response process, and acceptability. RESULTS: 'The 4Ps' included three sections for the patient to depict, prioritize, and evaluate participation using 12 items corresponding to 'Having Dialogue', 'Sharing Knowledge', 'Planning', and 'Managing Self-care'. The REs and PEs considered 'The 4Ps' comprehensible, and that all items corresponded to the concept of patient participation. The tool was perceived to facilitate patient participation whilst requiring amendments to content and layout. CONCLUSIONS: A tool like The 4Ps provides opportunities for patients to depict participation, and thus supports communication and collaboration. Further patient evaluation is needed to understand the conditions for patient participation. While The 4Ps is promising, revision and testing in clinical practice is required.
AIMS: To report on the development and initial testing of a clinical tool, The Patient Preferences for Patient Participation tool (The 4Ps), which will allow patients to depict, prioritize, and evaluate their participation in health care. BACKGROUND: While patient participation is vital for high quality health care, a common definition incorporating all stakeholders' experience is pending. In order to support participation in health care, a tool for determining patients' preferences on participation is proposed, including opportunities to evaluate participation while considering patient preferences. METHODS: Exploratory mixed methods studies informed the development of the tool, and descriptive design guided its initial testing. The 4Ps tool was tested with 21 Swedish researcher experts (REs) and patient experts (PEs) with experience of patient participation. Individual Think Aloud interviews were employed to capture experiences of content, response process, and acceptability. RESULTS: 'The 4Ps' included three sections for the patient to depict, prioritize, and evaluate participation using 12 items corresponding to 'Having Dialogue', 'Sharing Knowledge', 'Planning', and 'Managing Self-care'. The REs and PEs considered 'The 4Ps' comprehensible, and that all items corresponded to the concept of patient participation. The tool was perceived to facilitate patient participation whilst requiring amendments to content and layout. CONCLUSIONS: A tool like The 4Ps provides opportunities for patients to depict participation, and thus supports communication and collaboration. Further patient evaluation is needed to understand the conditions for patient participation. While The 4Ps is promising, revision and testing in clinical practice is required.
Authors: Inger Ekman; Karl Swedberg; Charles Taft; Anders Lindseth; Astrid Norberg; Eva Brink; Jane Carlsson; Synneve Dahlin-Ivanoff; Inga-Lill Johansson; Karin Kjellgren; Eva Lidén; Joakim Öhlén; Lars-Eric Olsson; Henrik Rosén; Martin Rydmark; Katharina Stibrant Sunnerhagen Journal: Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2011-07-20 Impact factor: 3.908
Authors: Margot J Metz; Iman Elfeddali; David G H Krol; Marjolein A Veerbeek; Edwin de Beurs; Aartjan T F Beekman; Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2017-03-07 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Ryuichi Ohta; Yoshinori Ryu; Jun Kitayuguchi; Chiaki Sano; Karen D Könings Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-12 Impact factor: 3.390