Meaningful consumer involvement in cancer care: a systematic review on co-design methods and processes

被引:2
|
作者
Kiss, Nicole [1 ,2 ]
Jongebloed, Hannah [3 ]
Baguley, Brenton [1 ]
Marshall, Skye [3 ,4 ,5 ]
White, Victoria M. [6 ]
Livingston, Patricia M. [3 ,7 ]
Bell, Kathy [8 ]
Young, Leonie [8 ]
Sabesan, Sabe [8 ,9 ]
Swiatek, Dayna [7 ]
Boltong, Anna [10 ,11 ]
Britto, Joanne M. [12 ]
Ugalde, Anna [3 ]
机构
[1] Deakin Univ, Inst Phys Act & Nutr, Geelong, Vic, Australia
[2] Peter MacCallum Canc Ctr, Dept Hlth Serv Res, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[3] Deakin Univ, Inst Hlth Transformat, Geelong, Vic, Australia
[4] Queensland Univ Technol, Canc & Palliat Care Outcomes Ctr, Sch Nursing, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[5] Bond Univ, Bond Univ Nutr & Dietet Res Grp, Fac Hlth Sci & Med, Gold Coast, Qld, Australia
[6] Deakin Univ, Fac Hlth, Sch Psychol, Geelong, Vic, Australia
[7] Deakin Univ, Fac Hlth, Geelong, Vic, Australia
[8] Clin Oncol Soc Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[9] Townsville Canc Ctr, Dept Med Oncol, Townsville, Qld, Australia
[10] Univ New South Wales, Kirby Inst, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
[11] Monash Univ, Fac Med Nursing & Hlth Sci, Dept Nutr Dietet & Food, Clayton, Vic 3800, Australia
[12] Victorian Comprehens Canc Ctr Alliance, Parkville, Vic, Australia
关键词
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT; HEALTH-CARE; PROSTATE-CANCER; DECISION AID; PATIENT; SUPPORT; QUALITY; PARTICIPATION; ACCEPTABILITY; FEASIBILITY;
D O I
10.1093/jncics/pkae048
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Objective Although the benefits of consumer involvement in research and health care initiatives are known, there is a need to optimize this for all people with cancer. This systematic review aimed to synthesize and evaluate the application of co-design in the oncology literature and develop recommendations to guide the application of optimal co-design processes and reporting in oncology research, practice, and policy.Methods A systematic review of co-design studies in adults with cancer was conducted, searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases and included studies focused on 2 concepts, co-design and oncology.Results A total of 5652 titles and abstracts were screened, resulting in 66 eligible publications reporting on 51 unique studies. Four frameworks were applied to describe the co-design initiatives. Most co-design initiatives were designed for use in an outpatient setting (n = 38; 74%) and were predominantly digital resources (n = 14; 27%) or apps (n = 12; 23%). Most studies (n = 25; 49%) used a co-production approach to consumer engagement. Although some studies presented strong co-design methodology, most (n = 36; 70%) did not report the co-design approach, and 14% used no framework. Reporting was poor for the participant level of involvement, the frequency, and time commitment of co-design sessions. Consumer participation level was predominantly collaborate (n = 25; 49%).Conclusions There are opportunities to improve the application of co-design in oncology research. This review has generated recommendations to guide 1) methodology and frameworks, 2) recruitment and engagement of co-design participants, and 3) evaluation of the co-design process. These recommendations can help drive appropriate, meaningful, and equitable co-design, leading to better cancer research and care.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Learning about co-design in primary care
    Thorburn, Kathryn
    Harris, Mark
    Spooner, Catherine
    Fisher, Karen
    AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH, 2021, 27 (04) : LI - LI
  • [32] Challenges of co-design for integrated care planning
    Rendalls, Shane
    Goodwin, Catherine
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTEGRATED CARE, 2021, 20
  • [33] Redefining co-design for social-ecological research and practice: A systematic literature review
    O'Donnell, Mairead
    Collier, Marcus
    Pineda-Pinto, Melissa
    Cooper, Clair
    Nulty, Fiona
    Castaneda, Natalia Rodriguez
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY, 2025, 164
  • [34] Co-design approaches in land use related sustainability science-A systematic review
    Busse, Maria
    Zscheischler, Jana
    Zoll, Felix
    Rogga, Sebastian
    Siebert, Rosemarie
    LAND USE POLICY, 2023, 129
  • [35] Co-Design Methods in Women's Reproductive Health Services Research: An Integrative Review
    Gerchow, Lauren
    Ma, Chenjuan
    Clark-Cutaia, Maya
    Squires, Allison
    NURSING RESEARCH, 2022, 71 (03) : S98 - S98
  • [36] Co-design of Guidance for Patient and Public Involvement in Psychedelic Research
    Close, James B.
    Bornemann, Julia
    Piggin, Maria
    Jayacodi, Sandra
    Luan, Lisa Xiaolu
    Carhart-Harris, Robin
    Spriggs, Meg Jo
    FRONTIERS IN PSYCHIATRY, 2021, 12
  • [37] Family involvement in advance care planning for people living with advanced cancer: A systematic mixed-methods review
    Kishino, Megumi
    Ellis-Smith, Clare
    Afolabi, Oladayo
    Koffman, Jonathan
    PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, 2022, 36 (03) : 462 - 477
  • [38] Male Partners' Involvement in Abortion Care: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review
    Altshuler, Anna L.
    Nguyen, Brian T.
    Riley, Halley E. M.
    Tinsley, Marilyn L.
    Tuncalp, Ozge
    PERSPECTIVES ON SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, 2016, 48 (04) : 209 - 219
  • [39] Consumer versus expert opinions on bowel cancer screening videos: Findings from a co-design study
    Goodwin, Belinda
    Anderson, Laura E.
    Perry, Nicole
    Zajdlewicz, Leah
    Stiller, Anna
    Wilson, Carlene
    Mcintosh, Jennifer
    Austin, Glenn
    Jiang, Joyce
    Jenkins, Mark
    PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2025, 130
  • [40] Terms and meanings of "participation" in product design: From "user involvement" to "co-design"
    Sanchez de la Guia, Lucia
    Puyuelo Cazorla, Marina
    de-Miguel-Molina, Blanca
    DESIGN JOURNAL, 2017, 20 : S4539 - S4551