Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36332956›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2022

Patient experiences of codesigned rehabilitation interventions in hospitals: a rapid review.

Jonathan P McKercher, Susan C Slade, Jalal A Jazayeri, Anita Hodge, Matthew Knight, Janet Green, Jeffrey Woods, Claire Thwaites, Meg E Morris

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Prevention of Falls in Parkinson's Disease: Guidelines and Gaps.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2023
    Review
  14. 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

9 authors.

Jonathan P McKercherARCH, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8839-8353
Susan C SladeDepartment of Physiotherapy, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6325-2705
Jalal A JazayeriARCH, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2627-9949
Anita HodgeHealthscope Limited, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5716-8811
Matthew KnightThe Victorian Rehabilitation Centre, Glen Waverley, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3626-9832
Janet GreenSchool of Nursing, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2938-6694
Jeffrey WoodsARCH, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8050-6578
Claire ThwaitesARCH, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4045-2090
Meg E MorrisARCH, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia m.morris@latrobe.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-0114-4175

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCodesign strengthens partnerships between healthcare workers and patients. It also facilitates collaborations supporting the development, design and delivery of healthcare services. Prior rehabilitation reviews have focused mainly on the clinical and organisational outcomes of codesign with less focus on the lived experience of rehabilitation patients.

objectiveTo explore patient experiences of codesigned hospital rehabilitation interventions.

designRapid review and evidence synthesis of the literature. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane were searched from 1 January 2000 to 25 April 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting patient experiences of codesigned rehabilitation interventions in hospitals.

results4156 studies were screened, and 38 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility. Seven studies were included in the final rapid review. Five out of the seven studies involved neurological rehabilitation. All eligible studies used qualitative research methods. The main barriers to codesign were related to staffing and dedicated time allocated to face-to-face patient-therapist interactions. High-quality relationships between patients and their therapists were a facilitator of codesign. Thematic synthesis revealed that codesigned rehabilitation interventions can enable a meaningful experience for patients and facilitate tailoring of treatments to align with individual needs. Personalised rehabilitation increases patient involvement in rehabilitation planning, delivery and decision-making. It also promotes positive feelings of empowerment and hope.

conclusionThis rapid review supports the implementation of codesigned rehabilitation interventions to improve patient experiences in hospitals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021264547.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelHospitalsDelivery of Health CareHealth ServicesHumansPatient Outcome Assessmenthealth policyquality in health carerehabilitation medicine

Identifiers

PMID36332956
PMCPMC9639115

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.