Co-production in action: improving the relevance of a Cochrane Review on person-centred care

Bronwyn Merner, Cinzia Colombo, Vicki Xafis, Carolyn Gaulden, Lisa Graham-Wisener, Sophie Hill

Research output: Contribution to conferenceAbstract

Abstract

Background:
Person-centred care remains an elusive goal for healthcare systems worldwide. Cochrane Reviews, as the gold standard for healthcare evidence, can contribute to improving person-centred care only when they are relevant to end-users, particularly consumers, health professionals and policy-makers.

Objectives:
To co-produce a Cochrane Review on person-centred care to improve its usefulness and relevance to end-users.

Methods:
We convened a purposively sampled, Australian-based panel of stakeholders (n = 18), including consumer representatives (n = 6), clinicians (n = 6) and health decision-makers (n = 6) to provide guidance at different stages of the review. We have currently held panel meetings to 1) determine the type of review and 2) finalise the review question and selection criteria. The next meeting of the panel will take place in August 2018 to finalise the results of the review.
During each meeting, stakeholders have been invited to give feedback on particular issues or questions. After the meeting, when relevant, stakeholders have voted on their preferred option. We have implemented the majority vote (when taken) and panel feedback in the development of the protocol. The author team reports back to the stakeholders after each meeting about how their feedback has been implemented.

Results:
Contributions from the panel have so far altered the direction of the review in the following ways:
1) After in-depth discussion of the options, 13/15 stakeholders voted for a qualitative review - therefore the review type was changed.
2) Changes to the selection criteria and scope: the background section was redrafted to increase its relevance; new objectives were added to aid implementation; inclusion and exclusion criteria were broadened.

It is anticipated that further changes may be made to the review itself when the panel meets again in August 2018.

Conclusions:
Co-production of a review with a stakeholder advisory panel resulted in changes at the protocol stage that may increase the relevance and usefulness of the review to end-users. We will provide data about the impacts of the panel at the review stage.
Original languageEnglish
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Fingerprint

Patient Selection
Delivery of Health Care
Health Policy
Administrative Personnel
Health
Direction compound

Cite this

Merner, Bronwyn ; Colombo, Cinzia ; Xafis, Vicki ; Gaulden, Carolyn ; Graham-Wisener, Lisa ; Hill, Sophie. / Co-production in action: improving the relevance of a Cochrane Review on person-centred care.
@conference{1828047d0bd4441e912c655ae08de3b7,
title = "Co-production in action: improving the relevance of a Cochrane Review on person-centred care",
abstract = "Background: Person-centred care remains an elusive goal for healthcare systems worldwide. Cochrane Reviews, as the gold standard for healthcare evidence, can contribute to improving person-centred care only when they are relevant to end-users, particularly consumers, health professionals and policy-makers.Objectives: To co-produce a Cochrane Review on person-centred care to improve its usefulness and relevance to end-users. Methods: We convened a purposively sampled, Australian-based panel of stakeholders (n = 18), including consumer representatives (n = 6), clinicians (n = 6) and health decision-makers (n = 6) to provide guidance at different stages of the review. We have currently held panel meetings to 1) determine the type of review and 2) finalise the review question and selection criteria. The next meeting of the panel will take place in August 2018 to finalise the results of the review.During each meeting, stakeholders have been invited to give feedback on particular issues or questions. After the meeting, when relevant, stakeholders have voted on their preferred option. We have implemented the majority vote (when taken) and panel feedback in the development of the protocol. The author team reports back to the stakeholders after each meeting about how their feedback has been implemented. Results:Contributions from the panel have so far altered the direction of the review in the following ways: 1) After in-depth discussion of the options, 13/15 stakeholders voted for a qualitative review - therefore the review type was changed. 2) Changes to the selection criteria and scope: the background section was redrafted to increase its relevance; new objectives were added to aid implementation; inclusion and exclusion criteria were broadened.It is anticipated that further changes may be made to the review itself when the panel meets again in August 2018.Conclusions: Co-production of a review with a stakeholder advisory panel resulted in changes at the protocol stage that may increase the relevance and usefulness of the review to end-users. We will provide data about the impacts of the panel at the review stage.",
author = "Bronwyn Merner and Cinzia Colombo and Vicki Xafis and Carolyn Gaulden and Lisa Graham-Wisener and Sophie Hill",
year = "2018",
language = "English",

}

Co-production in action: improving the relevance of a Cochrane Review on person-centred care. / Merner, Bronwyn; Colombo, Cinzia; Xafis, Vicki; Gaulden, Carolyn; Graham-Wisener, Lisa; Hill, Sophie.

2018.

Research output: Contribution to conferenceAbstract

TY - CONF

T1 - Co-production in action: improving the relevance of a Cochrane Review on person-centred care

AU - Merner, Bronwyn

AU - Colombo, Cinzia

AU - Xafis, Vicki

AU - Gaulden, Carolyn

AU - Graham-Wisener, Lisa

AU - Hill, Sophie

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Background: Person-centred care remains an elusive goal for healthcare systems worldwide. Cochrane Reviews, as the gold standard for healthcare evidence, can contribute to improving person-centred care only when they are relevant to end-users, particularly consumers, health professionals and policy-makers.Objectives: To co-produce a Cochrane Review on person-centred care to improve its usefulness and relevance to end-users. Methods: We convened a purposively sampled, Australian-based panel of stakeholders (n = 18), including consumer representatives (n = 6), clinicians (n = 6) and health decision-makers (n = 6) to provide guidance at different stages of the review. We have currently held panel meetings to 1) determine the type of review and 2) finalise the review question and selection criteria. The next meeting of the panel will take place in August 2018 to finalise the results of the review.During each meeting, stakeholders have been invited to give feedback on particular issues or questions. After the meeting, when relevant, stakeholders have voted on their preferred option. We have implemented the majority vote (when taken) and panel feedback in the development of the protocol. The author team reports back to the stakeholders after each meeting about how their feedback has been implemented. Results:Contributions from the panel have so far altered the direction of the review in the following ways: 1) After in-depth discussion of the options, 13/15 stakeholders voted for a qualitative review - therefore the review type was changed. 2) Changes to the selection criteria and scope: the background section was redrafted to increase its relevance; new objectives were added to aid implementation; inclusion and exclusion criteria were broadened.It is anticipated that further changes may be made to the review itself when the panel meets again in August 2018.Conclusions: Co-production of a review with a stakeholder advisory panel resulted in changes at the protocol stage that may increase the relevance and usefulness of the review to end-users. We will provide data about the impacts of the panel at the review stage.

AB - Background: Person-centred care remains an elusive goal for healthcare systems worldwide. Cochrane Reviews, as the gold standard for healthcare evidence, can contribute to improving person-centred care only when they are relevant to end-users, particularly consumers, health professionals and policy-makers.Objectives: To co-produce a Cochrane Review on person-centred care to improve its usefulness and relevance to end-users. Methods: We convened a purposively sampled, Australian-based panel of stakeholders (n = 18), including consumer representatives (n = 6), clinicians (n = 6) and health decision-makers (n = 6) to provide guidance at different stages of the review. We have currently held panel meetings to 1) determine the type of review and 2) finalise the review question and selection criteria. The next meeting of the panel will take place in August 2018 to finalise the results of the review.During each meeting, stakeholders have been invited to give feedback on particular issues or questions. After the meeting, when relevant, stakeholders have voted on their preferred option. We have implemented the majority vote (when taken) and panel feedback in the development of the protocol. The author team reports back to the stakeholders after each meeting about how their feedback has been implemented. Results:Contributions from the panel have so far altered the direction of the review in the following ways: 1) After in-depth discussion of the options, 13/15 stakeholders voted for a qualitative review - therefore the review type was changed. 2) Changes to the selection criteria and scope: the background section was redrafted to increase its relevance; new objectives were added to aid implementation; inclusion and exclusion criteria were broadened.It is anticipated that further changes may be made to the review itself when the panel meets again in August 2018.Conclusions: Co-production of a review with a stakeholder advisory panel resulted in changes at the protocol stage that may increase the relevance and usefulness of the review to end-users. We will provide data about the impacts of the panel at the review stage.

M3 - Abstract

ER -