Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37830651›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023

What Are the Best Practices for Co-Creating Patient-Facing Educational Materials? A Scoping Review of the Literature.

Isabella R McDonald, Elizabeth S Blocker, Elizabeth A Weyman, Neil Smith, Andrew A Dwyer

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Update on Physical, Psychological, and Quality of Life Management in Klinefelter Syndrome.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2025
    Review
  12. Nursing's Role in Advancing Care for Rare Genetic Diseases.The Nursing clinics of North America · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Isabella R McDonaldWilliam F. Connell School of Nursing, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, USA.
Elizabeth S BlockerWilliam F. Connell School of Nursing, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, USA.
Elizabeth A WeymanWilliam F. Connell School of Nursing, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, USA.
Neil Smith"I Am HH" Patient Organization, Dallas, TX 75238, USA.
Andrew A DwyerWilliam F. Connell School of Nursing, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7023-6794

Funding

The Massachusetts General Hospital Harvard Center for Reproductive MedicineP50HD104224 · NICHD · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI TALKOWSKI, MICHAEL E · 2021 to 2025
$7.8M
NICHD NIH HHS P50 HD104224
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Co-creating patient-facing educational materials (PEMs) can enhance person-centered care by responding to patient priorities and unmet needs. Little data exist on 'best practices' for co-creation. We followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework to conduct a systematic literature search of nine databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute, TRIP-April, 2022) to identify empirical studies published in English on PEM co-creation to distill 'best practices'. Following an independent dual review of articles, data were collated into tables, and thematic analysis was employed to synthesize 'best practices' that were validated by a patient experienced in co-creating PEMs. Bias was not assessed, given the study heterogeneity. Of 6998 retrieved articles, 44 were included for data extraction/synthesis. Studies utilized heterogeneous methods spanning a range of health conditions/populations. Only 5/45 (11%) studies defined co-creation, 14 (32%) used a guiding framework, and 18 (41%) used validated evaluation tools. Six 'best practices' were identified: (1) begin with a review of the literature, (2) utilize a framework to inform the process, (3) involve clinical and patient experts from the beginning, (4) engage diverse perspectives, (5) ensure patients have the final decision, and (6) employ validated evaluation tools. This scoping review highlights the need for clear definitions and validated evaluation measures to guide and assess the co-creation process. Identified 'best practices' are relevant for use with diverse patient populations and health issues to enhance person-centered care.

Indexed as

co-creationhypogonadotropic hypogonadismKallmann syndromepatient educationpatient participationvalue healthcare

Identifiers

PMID37830651
PMCPMC10572900

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.