Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Patient Educ Couns. 2019 May 4. pii: S0738-3991(19)30170-3. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.05.003. [Epub ahead of print]

A conceptual framework for patient-directed knowledge tools to support patient-centred care: Results from an evidence-informed consensus meeting.

Author information

1
Knowledge Institute of Medical Specialists, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Family Medicine, Maastricht University/School CAPHRI, Maastricht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: dunja.dreesens@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
2
Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands. Electronic address: A.M.Stiggelbout@lumc.nl.
3
Division of General Internal Medicine & Division of Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: thomas.agoritsas@gmail.com.
4
The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Hanover, USA. Electronic address: glynelwyn@gmail.com.
5
Division of health services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway; Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: signe.flottorp@kunnskapssenteret.no.
6
Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. Electronic address: jgrimshaw@ohri.ca.
7
Department Pediatrics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Princess Maxima Centrum for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: l.c.kremer@amc.uva.nl.
8
Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. Electronic address: santesna@mcmaster.ca.
9
Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada; School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. Electronic address: Dawn.Stacey@uOttawa.ca.
10
Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. Electronic address: streweek@mac.com.
11
Department of Neurology, College of Medicine / University of Florida, Gainesville, USA. Electronic address: Melissa.Armstrong@neurology.ufl.edu.
12
University Health Network/Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, Toronto, Canada. Electronic address: agagliar@uhnresearch.ca.
13
Centre for Health Communication and Participation, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia; Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: sophie.hill@latrobe.edu.au.
14
Laval University, Québec, Canada. Electronic address: France.Legare@mfa.ulaval.ca.
15
Centre for Health Communication and Participation, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia; Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: r.ryan@latrobe.edu.au.
16
Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: per.vandvik@gmail.com.
17
Department of Family Medicine, Maastricht University/School CAPHRI, Maastricht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: trudy.vanderweijden@maastrichtuniversity.nl.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

Patient-directed knowledge tools are designed to engage patients in dialogue or deliberation, to support patient decision-making or self-care of chronic conditions. However, an abundance of these exists. The tools themselves and their purposes are not always clearly defined; creating challenges for developers and users (professionals, patients). The study's aim was to develop a conceptual framework of patient-directed knowledge tool types.

METHODS:

A face-to-face evidence-informed consensus meeting with 15 international experts. After the meeting, the framework went through two rounds of feedback before informal consensus was reached.

RESULTS:

A conceptual framework containing five patient-directed knowledge tool types was developed. The first part of the framework describes the tools' purposes and the second focuses on the tools' core elements.

CONCLUSION:

The framework provides clarity on which types of patient-directed tools exist, the purposes they serve, and which core elements they prototypically include. It is a working framework and will require further refinement as the area develops, alongside validation with a broader group of stakeholders.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS:

The framework assists developers and users to know which type a tool belongs, its purpose and core elements, helping them to develop and use the right tool for the right job.

KEYWORDS:

(Shared) decision-making; Communication; Framework; Knowledge; Patient education; Tools

PMID:
31118137
DOI:
10.1016/j.pec.2019.05.003

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center