Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28950866›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2017

Public and patient involvement in needs assessment and social innovation: a people-centred approach to care and research for congenital disorders of glycosylation.

Cláudia de Freitas, Vanessa Dos Reis, Susana Silva, Paula A Videira, Eva Morava, Jaak Jaeken

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. A Participatory Framework for Plain Language Clinical Management Guideline Development.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A nationwide participatory programme to measure person-centred hospital care in Italy: Results and implications for continuous improvement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Cláudia de FreitasEPIUnit - Instituto de Saúde Pública, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal. claudia.defreitas@ispup.up.pt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1828-8642
Vanessa Dos ReisFounder of the Portuguese Association for CDG (APCDG), Porto, Portugal.
Susana SilvaEPIUnit - Instituto de Saúde Pública, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Paula A VideiraFaculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Eva MoravaSchool of Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, USA.
Jaak JaekenDepartment of Pediatrics, Center for Metabolic Disease, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPublic and patient involvement in the design of people-centred care and research is vital for communities whose needs are underserved, as are people with rare diseases. Innovations devised collectively by patients, caregivers, professionals and other members of the public can foster transformative change toward more responsive services and research. However, attempts to involve lay and professional stakeholders in devising community-framed strategies to address the unmet needs of rare diseases are lacking. In this study, we engaged with the community of Congenital Disorders of Glycosylation (CDG) to assess its needs and elicit social innovations to promote people-centred care and research.

methodsDrawing on a qualitative study, we conducted three think tanks in France with a total of 48 participants, including patients/family members (n = 18), health care professionals (n = 7), researchers (n = 7) and people combining several of these roles (n = 16). Participants came from 20 countries across five continents. They were selected from the registry of the Second World Conference on CDG through heterogeneity and simple random sampling. Inductive and deductive approaches were employed to conduct interpretational analysis using open, axial and selective coding, and the constant-comparison method to facilitate the emergence of categories and core themes.

resultsThe CDG community has unmet needs for information, quality health care, psychosocial support and representation in decision-making concerned with care and research. According to participants, these needs can be addressed through a range of social innovations, including peer-support communities, web-based information resources and a CDG expertise platform.

conclusionThis is one of the few studies to engage lay and professional experts in needs assessment and innovation for CDG at a global level. Implementing the innovations proposed by the CDG community is likely to have ethical, legal and social implications associated with the potential donation of patients' clinical and biological material that need to be assessed and regulated with involvement from all stakeholders. To promote people-centred care for the CDG community, and increase its participation in the governance of care and research, it is necessary to create participatory spaces in which the views of people affected by CDG can be fully expressed.

Indexed as

Congenital Disorders of GlycosylationNeeds AssessmentPatient ParticipationDecision MakingFamilyFemaleFranceHealth PersonnelHome NursingHumansMaleQualitative ResearchResearch PersonnelSelf-Help GroupsCongenital disorders of glycosylationELSINeeds assessmentPatient-oriented researchPeople-centred carePublic and patient involvementRare diseasesSocial innovations

Identifiers

PMID28950866
PMCPMC5615629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.