Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37263703›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Objectives and outcomes of patient-driven innovations published in peer-reviewed journals: a qualitative analysis of publications included in a scoping review.

Marie Dahlberg, Madelen Lek, Moa Malmqvist Castillo, Ami Bylund, Henna Hasson, Sara Riggare, Maria Reinius, Carolina Wannheden

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Understanding Co-Creation in a Research Partnership Programme Exploring Patient-Driven Innovations: A Qualitative Longitudinal Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Marie DahlbergDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden marie.dahlberg@ki.se.ORCID 0000-0001-9611-5256
Madelen LekDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Moa Malmqvist CastilloDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ami BylundDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Henna HassonDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-3827-6841
Sara RiggareParticipatory eHealth and Health Data, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala Universitet, Uppsala, Sweden.
Maria ReiniusDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-0864-8701
Carolina WannhedenDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-2122-1083

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of the objectives and outcomes of patient-driven innovations that have been published in the scientific literature, focusing on (A) the unmet needs that patient-driven innovations address and (B) the outcomes for patients and healthcare that have been reported.

methodsWe performed an inductive qualitative content analysis of scientific publications that were included in a scoping review of patient-driven innovations, previously published by our research group. The review was limited to English language publications in peer-reviewed journals, published in the years 2008-2020.

resultsIn total, 83 publications covering 21 patient-driven innovations were included in the analysis. Most of the innovations were developed for use on an individual or community level without healthcare involvement. We created three categories of unmet needs that were addressed by these innovations: access to self-care support tools, open sharing of information and knowledge, and patient agency in self-care and healthcare decisions. Eighteen (22%) publications reported outcomes of patient-driven innovations. We created two categories of outcomes: impact on self-care, and impact on peer interaction and healthcare collaboration.

conclusionsThe patient-driven innovations illustrated a diversity of innovative approaches to facilitate patients' and informal caregivers' daily lives, interactions with peers and collaborations with healthcare. As our findings indicate, patients and informal caregivers are central stakeholders in driving healthcare development and research forward to meet the needs that matter to patients and informal caregivers. However, only few studies reported on outcomes of patient-driven innovations. To support wider implementation, more evaluation studies are needed, as well as research into regulatory approval processes, dissemination and governance of patient-driven innovations.

Indexed as

Periodicals as TopicCaregiversDelivery of Health CareHumansPatientsSelf CarePUBLIC HEALTHQUALITATIVE RESEARCHQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID37263703
PMCPMC10255190

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.