Patient and public engagement in decision-making regarding infectious disease outbreak management: an integrative review.

Sophie Kemper, Mej Bongers, Ene Slok, L J Schoonmade, Jfh Kupper, A Timen
Author Information
  1. Sophie Kemper: National Coordination Centre for Communicable Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands sophie.kemper@rivm.nl.
  2. Mej Bongers: National Coordination Centre for Communicable Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
  3. Ene Slok: National Coordination Centre for Communicable Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
  4. L J Schoonmade: Medical Library, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  5. Jfh Kupper: Athena Institute, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  6. A Timen: National Coordination Centre for Communicable Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Worldwide, people experience the effects of infectious disease outbreaks on a regular basis. These effects vary from direct impact of the virus on health, to indirect impact of control measures on day-to-day life. Yet, incorporating the experiences, views and ideas of patients and the public in decision-making in managing outbreaks does not take place on a structural basis. However, this might be beneficial. We examined the current incorporation of patient and public engagement (PPE) in decision-making regarding outbreak management (OM).
METHODS: A systematic search was executed in PubMed, Embase, APA PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scopus and other literature sources. Papers describing PPE in decision-making regarding OM on a collective level (group-level) were included. Relevant information about study characteristics, methods, impact and embedment of PPE in decision-making in OM was collected.
RESULTS: The search yielded 4186 papers of which 13 were included. The papers varied in study context and design. Remarkably, no substantial patient engagement was identified. Overall, public engagement (PE) in decision-making regarding OM was mostly executed by a mix of methods, for example, workshops, interviews and surveys. Knowledge and idea sharing between the public and experts was deemed beneficial for establishing well-informed discussions. The efforts resulted in either direct implications for practice or recommendations in policy papers. Most papers described their efforts as a first step. No structural embedment of collective PE in decision-making regarding OM was identified. Furthermore, the quality of most papers was low to moderate due to insufficient description.
CONCLUSION: Overall, various practices for PE can be potentially valuable, but structural embedment in OM decision-making on a collective level was low. Before PPE can be permanently embedded in OM, more evidence on its impact needs to be collected. Furthermore, reporting on the engagement process and used terminology needs to be harmonised to ensure reproducibility and transparency.

Keywords

References

  1. Qual Health Res. 2016 May;26(6):734-40 [PMID: 26078330]
  2. BMJ. 2015 Jul 08;351:h3267 [PMID: 26156323]
  3. Glob Health Action. 2019;12(1):1662682 [PMID: 31507254]
  4. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(8):e1785 [PMID: 22953011]
  5. JAMA Psychiatry. 2020 Sep 1;77(9):891-892 [PMID: 32242888]
  6. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2020 Aug;29(4):549-552 [PMID: 32314526]
  7. Chest. 2018 Jan;153(1):187-195 [PMID: 28802695]
  8. Womens Health Issues. 2019 May - Jun;29(3):245-251 [PMID: 30878263]
  9. Hastings Cent Rep. 2012 Mar-Apr;42(2):20-3 [PMID: 22733326]
  10. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2017 Jul 12;7:317 [PMID: 28748176]
  11. Health Expect. 2009 Sep;12(3):331-42 [PMID: 19754694]
  12. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014 May 22;8(5):e2794 [PMID: 24853391]
  13. BMC Public Health. 2012 Apr 03;12:268 [PMID: 22472012]
  14. Biosecur Bioterror. 2014 Jan-Feb;12(1):8-19 [PMID: 24552360]
  15. Trop Med Int Health. 2009 Nov;14(11):1356-64 [PMID: 19840350]
  16. Lancet. 2014 Sep 27;384(9949):1181-2 [PMID: 25217114]
  17. Lancet. 2020 May 30;395(10238):1676-1678 [PMID: 32380042]
  18. BMJ Open. 2020 Jul 20;10(7):e039334 [PMID: 32690752]
  19. PLoS One. 2021 May 6;16(5):e0250614 [PMID: 33956831]
  20. Glob Public Health. 2021 Aug-Sep;16(8-9):1439-1453 [PMID: 33734007]
  21. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2016 Dec 28;4(4):626-646 [PMID: 28031301]
  22. J Public Health Res. 2013 Sep 05;2(2):e18 [PMID: 25170489]
  23. Bull World Health Organ. 2021 Feb 1;99(2):85-91 [PMID: 33551502]
  24. BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Oct;5(10): [PMID: 33051285]
  25. Health Policy. 2011 Dec;103(2-3):184-90 [PMID: 21868121]
  26. J R Soc Interface. 2014 Dec 6;11(101):20140950 [PMID: 25401184]
  27. BMJ Open. 2020 Dec 12;10(12):e043312 [PMID: 33310812]
  28. J Adv Nurs. 2005 Dec;52(5):546-53 [PMID: 16268861]
  29. Brain Behav. 2019 Jan;9(1):e01141 [PMID: 30506879]
  30. Lancet. 2014 Sep 27;384(9949):1181 [PMID: 25218774]
  31. J Glob Health. 2021 Jan 13;11:03003 [PMID: 33604031]
  32. Health Expect. 2009 Sep;12(3):275-87 [PMID: 19754691]
  33. Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 5;5(1):210 [PMID: 27919275]
  34. BMC Public Health. 2010 Aug 19;10:501 [PMID: 20718996]
  35. Prog Disaster Sci. 2020 Oct;7:100102 [PMID: 34171013]
  36. Promot Educ. 2008 Dec;15(4):53-5 [PMID: 19066240]
  37. BMJ Open. 2016 Oct 31;6(10):e011040 [PMID: 27799238]

MeSH Term

Disease Outbreaks
Humans
Reproducibility of Results

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0decision-makingOMpublicengagementregardingpapersimpactPPEstructuralcollectiveembedmentPEeffectsinfectiousdiseaseoutbreaksbasisdirecthealthcontrolbeneficialpatientoutbreaksearchexecutedlevelincludedstudymethodscollectedidentifiedOveralleffortspolicyFurthermorelowcanneedsreviewINTRODUCTION:Worldwidepeopleexperienceregularvaryvirusindirectmeasuresday-to-daylifeYetincorporatingexperiencesviewsideaspatientsmanagingtakeplaceHowevermightexaminedcurrentincorporationmanagementMETHODS:systematicPubMedEmbaseAPAPsycInfoWebScienceScopusliteraturesourcesPapersdescribinggroup-levelRelevantinformationcharacteristicsRESULTS:yielded418613variedcontextdesignRemarkablysubstantialmostlymixexampleworkshopsinterviewssurveysKnowledgeideasharingexpertsdeemedestablishingwell-informeddiscussionsresultedeitherimplicationspracticerecommendationsdescribedfirststepqualitymoderatedueinsufficientdescriptionCONCLUSION:variouspracticespotentiallyvaluablepermanentlyembeddedevidencereportingprocessusedterminologyharmonisedensurereproducibilitytransparencyPatientmanagement:integrativestrategiesdiseasesdisordersinfectionsinjuries

Similar Articles

Cited By