Next Article in Journal
Digital Teacher Competence Frameworks Evolution and Their Use in Ibero-America up to the Year the COVID-19 Pandemic Began: A Systematic Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Measuring Interprofessional Collaboration’s Impact on Healthcare Services Using the Quadruple Aim Framework: A Protocol Paper
Previous Article in Journal
The Effect of Pre-Operative Verbal Confirmation for Interventional Radiology Physicians on Their Use of Personal Dosimeters and Personal Protective Equipment
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Contribution of Cultural Heritage Owned by Local Health Authorities in the Humanization of Care: The Point of View of Top Management
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 24
10.3390/ijerph192416826
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Rapid Review of the Factors That Influence Service User Involvement in Interprofessional Education, Practice, and Research

by
Michael Palapal Sy
1,*,
Arden Panotes
1,
Daniella Cho
2,
Roi Charles Pineda
3 and
Priya Martin
2,4
1
National Teacher Training Center for the Health Professions, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila 1000, Philippines
2
Faculty of Medicine, Rural Clinical School, The University of Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia
3
Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
4
Health and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4067, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(24), 16826; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416826
Submission received: 10 November 2022 / Revised: 11 December 2022 / Accepted: 12 December 2022 / Published: 15 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strengthening Healthcare Systems and Services through Intersectoral and Interprofessional Partnerships)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Service user involvement in interprofessional education and collaborative practice remains limited despite the increasing push for this by governments and grant funding bodies. This rapid review investigated service user involvement in interprofessional education, practice, and research to determine factors that enable or hinder such involvement. Following the Cochrane and the World Health Organization’s rapid review guidelines, a targeted search was undertaken in four databases. Subsequent to the screening processes, included papers were critically appraised, and extracted data were synthesized narratively. Sixteen studies met inclusion criteria. Most studies were related to interprofessional collaborative practice, as opposed to education and research. Service user involvement was more in the form of consultation and collaboration, as opposed to consumer-led partnerships. Enablers and barriers to service user involvement in IPECP were identified. Enablers included structure, the valuing of different perspectives, and relationships. Barriers included time and resources, undesirable characteristics, and relationships. This rapid review has added evidence to a swiftly expanding field, providing timely guidance. Healthcare workers can benefit from targeted training. Policy makers, healthcare organizations, and governments can investigate strategies to mitigate the time and resource challenges that impede service user involvement in IPECP.

1. Introduction

Service user involvement in healthcare education, practice, and research has gained attention in response to government policies that mandate client and public involvement in healthcare services [1,2]. Service users are those who use or are affected by the services provided by healthcare workers, including clients and their carers [3]. Often, service user involvement in healthcare is also referred to as consumer involvement [4], patient and consumer engagement [5], patient involvement [6], and patient participation [7]. In principle, it embodies person-centered care where service users are included in decision making related to the services they receive. Services that have engaged service users in decision making have achieved higher levels of patient satisfaction and improved healthcare outcomes [8].
Service user involvement can also be useful in education and research. The recognition that service users are experts of their own experience [9] places value on their contribution to the education of healthcare workers. Service user involvement in health professions education literature has included membership in advisory groups, sharing personal stories during classroom discussions, and assessing student performance during fieldwork placements [10]. This involvement in education has been documented to be of remarkable benefit to service users, as taking part in teaching activities can empower their sense of value [11]. A rapid review by Slattery et al. [12] revealed that service user involvement in research includes a wide range of activities such as occasional end-user feedback on research materials, power-sharing arrangements in research activities, and end-user-led research. These activities can be paralleled by the three steps of participation proposed by the Consumer in NHS Research: consultation (e.g., asking service users for their views that will inform decision making), collaboration (e.g., active, on-going partnership with consumers such as being a committee member in a task force), and consumer-controlled research (e.g., consumers designing, undertaking, and disseminating research results; healthcare workers being involved only upon invitation from the service users) [13].
Interprofessional education (IPE) programs, where students learn with, from, and about each other [14], can improve students’ understanding of their own role [15], enhance positive attitudes towards other professionals [16], and teamwork skills [17]. These skills are necessary competencies for working in interprofessional teams to deliver person-centered care. Students that have educational experiences with service users have been shown to develop a better understanding of the patient-centered perspective and gain skills to work effectively in an interprofessional environment [18]. Interprofessional collaborative practice initiatives can be valuable to practicing (i.e., post-qualification/registration) healthcare workers [19]. Therefore, Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice (IPECP) initiatives, given their person-centered nature, are well-placed for service user involvement right from the service or project initiation phase.
In practice, service user involvement in IPECP is limited due to several challenges. A review by Repper and Breeze [10] showed that there are few IPE initiatives that involve service users. Educational experiences that involve service users are mostly in the community mental health field and are small-scale qualitative studies that evaluate the impact of the experience on students and service users [10,18,19]. An interview study by Kvarnström and colleagues [20] showed that healthcare workers have a varied understanding of service user involvement in an interprofessional context. They identified that service user involvement can cause a possible power imbalance between the healthcare worker and the service user. IPECP research in the real world can be hard to implement and sustain, given the multiple layers involved [21]. This may make it less appealing to involve another stakeholder group (i.e., services users) in the design and conduct of research. IPECP experts advocate for the use of innovative approaches that include service users in research as a priority agenda [21]. The research trend in IPECP is moving towards enhancing the relevance of the research to those who are impacted by the outcomes, with attention given to diversity and inclusivity [22]. Globally, funding bodies are increasingly pushing for service users to be involved in research projects [23,24]. However, within the IPECP field, little is known about the extent and nature of service users’ involvement in education, practice, and research initiatives.

1.1. Review Aims

The aim of this rapid review is to investigate service user involvement in interprofessional education, practice, and research, and to determine factors that enable or hinder.

1.2. Review Questions

  • What is the current status of service user involvement in interprofessional education, practice, and research?
  • What are the enablers of and barriers to service user involvement in interprofessional education, practice, and research?

2. Materials and Methods

In line with the resources available and to swiftly add evidence in this rapidly expanding field, a rapid review method was chosen. The study followed the guidelines for conducting rapid reviews proposed by the World Health Organization [25] and Cochrane [26]. The steps of the review included needs assessment, protocol development, the literature search, screening and study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, knowledge synthesis and report dissemination [25]. Expert consultation with IPECP stakeholders was also conducted while developing the protocol. The WHO checklist for rapid reviews was used to ensure quality assurance (Supplementary Table S1).

2.1. Needs Assessment

To initiate the needs assessment, a preliminary literature search was conducted by the reviewers to determine the suitability of the topic’s scope and the appropriate methods. The review team undertook this review in response to one of the research priorities of IPECP, which is to promote the participation and involvement of service users in IPECP-related education, practice, and research, to influence policy making [27].

2.2. Protocol Development

A study protocol was developed to guide the review and was registered on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/p5f2w/) (accessed on 8 November 2022).

2.3. Literature Search

2.3.1. Database Selection

To yield a manageable number of studies for this review considering the available resources, the electronic databases searched were limited to Cochrane Central, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, and CINAHL via EBSCO. These databases were chosen as they include multidisciplinary journals on health and social care, and education.

2.3.2. Search Strategy

The population, intervention, comparator, outcome (PICO) elements (Table 1) were used to formulate the key terms for the search strategy and develop the inclusion criteria for study selection. Based on PICO, the key terms for the search were service users (population), interprofessional education/practice/research (investigated phenomenon) and involvement (outcome). The search string was optimized for each database and developed from a combination of controlled vocabularies (e.g., MeSH and Emtree) and free text search (limited to title, abstract and keywords search) that included the most pertinent related terms. A search limit was applied to identify only English-language peer-reviewed articles published from 2006 onwards. Furthermore, only articles with an abstract were searched to exclude other types of publication like commentaries and editorial letters. A specialist subject librarian was consulted during the development of the search string. The full search strings used for each database have been included in Supplementary Table S2.

2.4. Screening and Study Selection

Records yielded by the previous step were transferred to Endnote X9 (Clarivate, Philadelphia, PA, USA) and uploaded onto Covidence for deduplication and screening. Cochrane rapid review guidelines [26] were followed in a two-stage screening process. During the title and abstract screening stage, all the reviewers screened 20 records together to pilot the application of the inclusion/exclusion criteria for screening. Thereafter, two reviewers (AP and DC) dual screened 20% of the records (n = 645), with conflict resolution by the rest of the reviewers, to establish consistency. Finally, the remaining records were split between the two reviewers (AP and DC). In the full-text screening stage, all reviewers screened ten articles together to standardize the process. The full-text screening of the remaining articles was completed by two reviewers (AP and DC).

2.5. Data Extraction

A customized data extraction form was developed, piloted, and refined by the entire review team. Two reviewers (AP and DC) extracted pertinent data from the included articles. As a group, all reviewers verified the tabulated data for correctness and completeness. See Supplementary Table S3 for the data extraction template used.

2.6. Risk of Bias (Quality) Assessment

Critical appraisal of the included papers was completed by three reviewers (AP, DC, and RCP), with conflict resolution provided by a fourth reviewer (MPS). The fourth reviewer (MPS) also cross-checked the results of the review using six randomly selected papers for quality assurance. The modified McMaster critical appraisal tool for quantitative [28] and qualitative [29] studies and Hong et al.’s [30] Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool were used. These tools were chosen (over the JBI tools as outlined in the protocol) as they were determined by the review team as more suited to the types of studies included in the review. In addition, these tools are freely available and widely used in similar reviews.

2.7. Knowledge Synthesis

A narrative synthesis of the identified literature was conducted to develop themes [31]. The papers were grouped based on the variables used for data extraction. The narrative synthesis reported the results of included studies and discussed the reasons for differences among studies, such as heterogeneity of the PICO elements, study design, and methodological quality. The final report includes implications of the review findings, and recommendations for policy and practice.

3. Results

The database search yielded 4359 records. After removal of 1128 duplicates, 3231 records were subjected to title and abstract screening. Subsequently, 148 articles were retrieved for full-text review. A total of 114 records were excluded because of wrong intervention. Nine records were excluded because of wrong population. Seven records were excluded because of wrong study design and two were excluded because full text articles were not available. Finally, 16 articles met all the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Further information is presented in Figure 1 (a flow diagram of included studies). Canada [32,33,34] and the Netherlands [35,36,37] produced three publications each. Germany [38,39] and the UK [40,41] had two publications each. Australia [42], Norway [43], Sweden [44], Switzerland [45], the USA [46], and Canada and the USA combined [47] had one publication each.
Included studies were published between 2006 to 2021. The years 2006 [41], 2012 [40], and 2013 [38] had one publication each. A spike to two to four publications was observed in 2014 [39,44], 2015 [34,42,43,47], and 2017 [35,36]. Subsequently, there was one publication in 2018 [37], and two in 2019 [33,45] and 2021 [32,46]. Overall, the number of publications on this topic over the last ten years appears to have risen and peaked in 2015, after which the numbers have lowered and remained steady.
A majority (n = 10) of the publications reported IPECP practice initiatives, followed by IPECP practice and research initiatives (n = 3), IPECP practice and education initiatives (n = 2), and an IPECP education initiative (n = 1). Study settings included primary care services, rehabilitation clinics, social services, chronic disease management services, ICUs, obstetrics networks, child welfare services, cancer networks and home hospices. Patients in the included studies were children and young people, pregnant women, those with chronic disease conditions, those in ICUs or those serviced by cancer networks, and community care and family health. Service users in the included studies were partners, family members in a caring role, and community care providers and volunteers. Healthcare workers in the included studies consisted of general practitioners, family physicians, IT professionals, nurses, patient navigators, patient advocates, pharmacists, physiotherapists, practice managers, social workers, speech pathologists, and researchers.
The participant sample size reported in the included studies ranged from five in an interview study [43] to over 629 participants in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) [39]. The age range of participants in the included studies was from five to ten years [44] to 87 years [45]. Most studies used qualitative methods (n = 14), followed by mixed methods (n = 1) and quantitative methods (n = 1), specifically a multi-center cluster RCT [38]. The qualitative methods used were largely interviews (n = 7), focus groups (n = 5), observation (n = 3), ethnography (n = 1), document review (n = 1), participatory action research (n = 1), and the persona-scenario method (n = 1). Mixed methods consisted of focus groups and expert surveys. Further information about the included studies has been presented in Table 2 (Study characteristics).

3.1. Methodological Quality

The included studies all clearly stated the study purpose and provided a relevant review of the literature. One study did not thoroughly describe the process of study selection [34]. Seven studies utilized an inductive approach to data analysis [32,33,37,41,43,45,46]. Only one qualitative study identified the assumptions and biases of the researcher [32]. All studies presented findings that were consistent and reflective of the gathered data. However, there are two studies which did not adequately describe the process of analyzing data [34,40]. The quantitative study and all qualitative studies provided appropriate conclusions given the study methods and results. The modified McMaster critical appraisal checklist for qualitative and quantitative studies and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool are attached as Supplementary Tables S4–S6.

3.2. Service User Involvement in IPECP Education, Practice, and Research

3.2.1. Nature of Service User Involvement

Studies reported service user involvement in IPECP practice, training, and research. Involvement of service users in interprofessional meetings was reported frequently, such as intake and discharge planning meetings [35,36,44,45], as well as models of care where service users were considered as part of the interprofessional team [32,33]. Studies also discussed co-creation of a shared decision-making model [37] and shared decision-making training programs [38,39]. In the study by Reeves et al. [47], service users were involved in ward rounds to enable shared decision making. Other studies involved service users in workshops and training [34], and in quality improvement projects [34,40]. The study by Sæbjørnsen and Willumsen [43] engaged service users in a variety of ways including case conferences, evaluations, and roundtable discussions. Some studies outlined the involvement of service users in novel strategies such as a partnership group or model of care related to cancer care [41], and engagement in medication review [46].

3.2.2. Enablers

Enablers of service user involvement in IPECP identified in the included studies can be summarized into three categories: structure, valuing different perspectives, and relationships.
Structure: Having a structure to the involvement of service users in IPECP initiatives can promote intentionality [44,45] and enable healthcare workers to make time to engage with this [34]. Use of a specific framework can also assist with providing a structure [47]. Funding can also enable healthcare workers to invest time in service user involvement [42]. One study found that use of video vignettes enhanced participant focus in interprofessional team meetings [35].
Valuing different perspectives: There needs to be a desire for and willingness to engage service users in IPECP initiatives [32,40,42]. This was facilitated by active listening, active participation [34] and patient involvement in evaluations [32,38]. Co-creating with service users [37] and active participation of patients [36] were considered important.
Relationships: Participants in the included studies reiterated the importance of building trust [43] through positive interactions [45], which can lead to collaborative partnerships [41,43].

3.2.3. Barriers

Barriers identified in the included studies can be summarized into three categories: time and resources, undesirable characteristics, and relationships.
Time and resources: Service user involvement in IPECP can be limited by a lack of time on the part of healthcare workers [32,33,34,38,39] and patients [32,40]. Additionally, a lack of resources including costs to cover parking, transport, and food, as well as institutional commitment [33,41] can hamper this.
Undesirable characteristics: Negative attitudes such as lack of inclusivity, inflexibility, offensive remarks, use of jargon, and lack of knowledge and skills on the part of patients [36] and healthcare workers [32,37,38,44] can impede collaboration and thus service user involvement in IPECP. Sub-cultures and conflicts within teams and between professions can also be a significant barrier [35,37,38,39,47].
Relationships: Poor relationships between patients and their care providers [42], conflicts [45], distrust in healthcare workers due to breach in confidentiality [43], and service users being a vulnerable group (e.g., palliative care patients; [46]) can all impede engagement and participation in IPECP.

4. Discussion

This rapid review investigated the evidence on service user involvement in IPECP practice, education, and research. Service user involvement in included studies was most predominant in practice and less common in teaching, education, and research. Most included studies were conducted on service users, thereby only enabling consultation and collaboration levels of participation, as opposed to consumer-controlled or consumer-led initiatives [13]. Cancer Australia’s [48] levels of consumer involvement framework provides healthcare workers and researchers with guidance on maximizing the level of service user engagement and participation in health care, with applicability to research and education as well. This review highlights the need to include service users as partners right from project conceptualization to completion. Being more cognizant of existing frameworks on levels of service user engagement will enable researchers and program developers to become more intentional in co-designing IPECP initiatives.
Most included studies in this review originated from Western countries. This could be because Western principles of individualism, self-actualization, and the liberty to exercise human rights underpin patient autonomy and agency [49]. Service user involvement in practice, education, and research reflects principles of inclusivity, respect, participation, iteration, and being outcome-focused [50]. These principles are only emerging in populations that embrace collectivistic cultures where decision making and participation are dependent on interpersonal, intergenerational, and familial considerations [51], such as those seen in low- and middle-income countries. This review highlights the need for promoting service user involvement internationally, as it embodies good use of research and prevents wastage of public research funding [52,53]. Good use of research will in turn enhance healthcare outcomes of peoples, communities, and populations.
Participatory action research and qualitative methods can facilitate service user engagement in research, as these approaches can bring the lived experiences of service users to the foreground [54,55]. The nature of relationships between a healthcare worker and consumer can either enable or hinder consumer engagement. Therefore, both parties need to strive to build a positive and supportive partnership. Moreover, by staying true to the epistemological and ontological underpinnings of participatory action research, the co-design process with service users can intentionally expand from clinical practice to health professions education, training, and research. Following Towle’s [9] taxonomy on the degree of involvement of service users in teaching and learning encounters, educators can co-design curriculums and instructions not just for but with service users. Professional development courses on maximizing service user involvement in IPECP, including the use of recommended research approaches, are warranted to upskill healthcare workers to further engage with service users.
It is noteworthy to highlight the challenges faced by service users with cognitive impairments or high-risk health conditions [46] noted in this review. Acknowledging the difficulties in engaging specific service user populations in the co-design process, several researchers have provided frameworks and recommendations to mitigate these challenges [56,57,58,59]. Although not all service users are willing or able to be involved in their own care, it is essential that service providers (i.e., healthcare workers) do not act as gatekeepers of the process. Rather than making assumptions or withholding options, service providers should support individual autonomy and leave the decision to participate to the service users themselves [57]. For those who are most cognitively or physically impaired, service providers should recognize the value of insights of families, friends, and advocates who have first-hand knowledge of the issues that matter to people with severe impairments [56]. There is also a need to advance this body of work in pediatric and adolescent services so that consumers in these areas can also be active participants in their care. Policy makers and healthcare organizations need to invest in this area to make it easier for service users with significant impairments to engage with service providers to enhance their healthcare journey.

Strengths and Limitations

This review has added evidence to a field that is increasingly getting more attention from governments and grant funding bodies. It provides evidence to support the need for further work in the area of service user involvement in IPECP. Despite being a rapid review, this research included results from four database searches and was inclusive of a broad range of research studies utilizing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods designs. Using a comprehensive range of critical appraisal tools enabled appraisal of all the studies appropriate to the study designs used. Reviewers in this team have collective expertise in IPECP (MPS, RCP, PM) and review methodology (MPS, RCP, PM). They possess experience in diverse health systems across Australia (DC, PM), Belgium (RCP), India (PM), Japan (MPS) and the Philippines (MPS, AP), in a variety of roles including clinical (all reviewers), teaching (MPS, PM) and research roles (all reviewers), and represent two professions: occupational therapy (MPS, AP, RCP, PM) and medicine (DC). These experiences guided the iterative process of fine-tuning the PICO, as well as interpreting the results of the review from different perspectives and contexts. Use of the Cochrane and WHO rapid review guidelines ensured the rigor of the review processes. In line with the resources available, the review team followed strict criteria to only include studies that explicitly used the term ‘interprofessional’. This may have excluded other IPECP studies that used different terminology to denote the same concept, which is reflective of the wider terminology issue in this field. Further systematic reviews are needed in this area to provide a more comprehensive view of this topic. This review team did not include a consumer. Future reviews can include a consumer on the review team to enable interpretation of findings also through a consumer lens.

5. Conclusions

This rapid review has added evidence to a rapidly expanding field, providing timely guidance on service user involvement in IPECP practice, education, and research. The available evidence indicates that service users are most engaged in IPECP practice, in comparison to education and research. Furthermore, the levels of engagement are mainly at the lower levels of the engagement hierarchy, as well as more towards the tail end of a project. This review highlights the need for healthcare workers to engage service users right from project initiation in practice, education, and research, plus work towards higher levels of engagement moving towards consumer-led partnerships. Healthcare workers can benefit from targeted training that provides them with a skillset in co-designing IPECP initiatives with service users right from the outset. Policy makers, healthcare organizations, and governments can investigate strategies to mitigate the time and resource challenges that impede service user involvement in IPECP practice, education, and research. Further research can investigate ways to promote higher levels of engagement of service users in education and research, including service users with significant cognitive, physical, or mental impairments.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph192416826/s1, Table S1: WHO minimum reporting items for rapid reviews checklist; Table S2: Search strings used for each electronic database; Table S3: Data extraction template; Table S4: McMaster critical appraisal for included studies-Qualitative; Table S5: McMaster critical appraisal for included studies-Quantitative; Table S6: Mixed methods appraisal checklist for included studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.P.S. and P.M.; methodology, M.P.S. and P.M; formal analysis, M.P.S., A.P., D.C., R.C.P. and P.M.; investigation, M.P.S., A.P., D.C., R.C.P. and P.M; resources M.P.S., A.P., D.C., R.C.P. and P.M; data curation M.P.S., A.P., D.C., R.C.P. and P.M; writing—original draft M.P.S., A.P., D.C., R.C.P. and P.M; writing—review and editing M.P.S., A.P., D.C., R.C.P. and P.M; project administration, M.P.S. and P.M; visualization, M.P.S., A.P., D.C., R.C.P. and P.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The review did not require ethical approval.

Informed Consent Statement

This is not applicable for the review.

Data Availability Statement

The review did not report any data.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Denisse Peralta for assisting in the acquisition of several articles, Jacky Cribb for giving feedback on the literature search strategy, and Jill Thisthlewaite, Jette Steenberg Holtzmann, Johanna Dahlberg, and Andreas Xyrichis for sharing resources on the topic.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Australian Health Ministers. National Mental Health Policy 2008; Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, Australia, 2009.
  2. House of Commons Health Committee. Patient and public involvement in the NHS. In HC-278-I; The Stationery Office: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  3. Health & Care Professions Council. Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics; Health & Care Professions Council: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  4. Happell, B.; Byrne, L.; McAllister, M.; Lampshire, D.; Roper, C.; Gaskin, C.J.; Martin, G.; Wynaden, D.; McKenna, B.; Lakeman, R.; et al. Consumer involvement in the tertiary-level education of mental health professionals: A systematic review. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs. 2014, 23, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wiles, L.K.; Kay, D.; Luker, J.A.; Worley, A.; Austin, J.; Ball, A.; Bevan, A.; Cousins, M.; Dalton, S.; Hodges, E.; et al. Consumer engagement in health care policy, research and services: A systematic review and meta-analysis of methods and effects. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0261808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Romme, S.; Bosveld, M.H.; Van Bokhoven, M.A.; De Nooijer, J.; Van den Besselaar, H.; Van Dongen, J.J.J. Patient involvement in interprofessional education: A qualitative study yielding recommendations on incorporating the patient’s perspective. Health Expect. 2020, 23, 943–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Jensen, C.B.; Norbye, B.; Dahlgren, M.A.; Iversen, A. Patient participation in interprofessional learning and collaboration with undergraduate health professional students in clinical placements: A scoping review. J. Interprofessional Educ. Pract. 2022, 27, 100494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lammers, J.; Happell, B. Mental health reforms and their impact on consumer and carer participation: A perspective from Victoria, Australia. Issues Ment. Health Nurs. 2004, 25, 261–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Towle, A.; Bainbridge, L.; Godolphin, W.; Katz, A.; Kline, C.; Lown, B.; Madularu, I.; Solomon, P.; Thistlethwaite, J. Active patient involvement in the education of health professionals. Med. Educ. 2010, 44, 64–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Repper, J.; Breeze, J. User and carer involvement in the training and education of health professionals: A review of the literature. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2007, 44, 511–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Jones, C. Involving NHS service users in teaching advanced clinical skills. Br. J. Nurs. 2006, 15, 462–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Slattery, P.; Saeri, A.K.; Bragge, P. Research co-design in health: A rapid overview of reviews. Health Res. Policy Syst. 2020, 18, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Hanley, B.; Bradburn, J.; Gorin, S.; Barnes, M.; Evans, C.; Goodare, H.; Kelson, M.; Kent, A.; Oliver, S.; Wallcraft, J. Involving Consumers in Research and Development in the NHS: Briefing Notes for Researchers; Consumers in NHS Research Support Unit: Hamshire, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  14. World Health Organization. Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  15. Young, A.S.; Chinman, M.; Forquer, S.L.; Knight, E.L.; Vogel, H.; Miller, A.; Rowe, M.; Mintz, J. Use of a consumer-led intervention to improve provider competencies. Psychiatr. Serv. 2005, 56, 967–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Curran, V.; Heath, O.; Adey, T.; Callahan, T.; Craig, D.; Hearn, T.; White, H.; Hollett, A. An approach to integrating interprofessional education in collaborative mental health care. Acad. Psychiatry 2012, 36, 91–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Barnes, D.; Carpenter, J.; Dickinson, C. The outcomes of partnerships with mental health service users in interprofessional education: A case study. Health Soc. Care Community 2006, 14, 426–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Cooper, H.; Spencer-Dawe, E. Involving service users in interprofessional education narrowing the gap between theory and practice. J. Interprofessional Care 2006, 20, 603–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Carpenter, J.; Barnes, D.; Dickinson, C.; Wooff, D. Outcomes of interprofessional education for Community Mental Health Services in England: The longitudinal evaluation of a postgraduate programme. J. Interprofessional Care 2006, 20, 145–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Kvarnström, S.; Hedberg, B.; Cedersund, E. The dual faces of service user participation: Implications for empowerment processes in interprofessional practice. J. Soc. Work. 2013, 13, 287–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Khalili, H.; Breitbach, A.; Jensen, G.; King, S.; Maxwell, B.; Nickol, D.; Pfeifle, A.; Gilbert, J. Global leadership in IPECP research: An intro to co-creation of best practice guidelines. J. Interprofessional Educ. Pract. 2021, 24, 100445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lackie, K.; Najjar, G.; El-Awaisi, A.; Frost, J.; Green, C.; Langlois, S.; Lising, D.; Pfeifle, A.L.; Ward, H.; Xyrichis, A.; et al. Interprofessional education and collaborative practice research during the COVID-19 pandemic: Considerations to advance the field. J. Interprofessional Care 2020, 34, 583–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. National Health and Medical Research Council. Statement on Consumer and Community Involvement in Health and Medical Research; National Health and Medical Research Council: Canberra, Australia, 2016.
  24. National Institute for Health and Care Research. It’s Time for Patients, Service Users and the Public to Lead Development of New Research Ideas. Available online: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/blog/its-time-for-patients-service-users-and-the-public-to-lead-development-of-new-research-ideas/29669 (accessed on 8 November 2022).
  25. Tricco, A.C.; Langlois, E.V.; Straus, S.E. Rapid Reviews to Strengthen Health Policy and Systems: A Practical Guide; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  26. Garritty, C.; Gartlehner, G.; Nussbaumer-Streit, B.; King, V.J.; Hamel, C.; Kamel, C.; Affengruber, L.; Stevens, A. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2021, 130, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Khalili, H.; Thistlethwaite, J.; El-Awaisi, A.; Pfeifle, A.; Gilbert, J.; Lising, D.; MacMillan, K.; Maxwell, B.; Grymonpre, R.; Rodrigues, F.; et al. Guidance on Global Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice Research: Discussion Paper; A joint publication by InterprofessionalResearch.Global & Interprofessional.Global; 2019. Available online: https://interprofessional.global/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Guidance-on-Global-Interprofessional-Education-and-Collaborative-Practice-Research_Discussion-Paper_FINAL-WEB.pdf (accessed on 9 November 2022).
  28. Law, M.; Stewart, D.; Pollock, N.; Letts, L.; Bosch, J.; Westmorland, M. Critical Review Form—Quantitative Studies; McMaster University: Hamilton, ON, Canada, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  29. Letts, L.; Wilkins, S.; Law, M.; Stewart, D.; Bosch, J.; Westmorland, M. Critical Review Form—Qualitative Studies (Version 2.0); McMaster University: Hamilton, ON, Canada, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hong, Q.N.; Gonzalez-Reyes, A.; Pluye, P. Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2018, 24, 459–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Popay, J.; Roberts, H.; Sowden, A.; Petticrew, M.; Arai, L.; Rodgers, M.; Britten, N.; Roen, K.; Duffy, S. Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews: A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme. Available online: https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/contentassets/documents/fhm/dhr/chir/NSsynthesisguidance Version1-April2006.pdf (accessed on 9 November 2022).
  32. Metersky, K.; Orchard, C.; Adams, T.; Hurlock-Chorostecki, C. Patient roles in primary care interprofessional teams: A constructivist grounded theory of patient and health care provider perspectives. J. Interprofessional Care 2021, 36, 177–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Valaitis, R.; Longaphy, J.; Ploeg, J.; Agarwal, G.; Oliver, D.; Nair, K.; Kastner, M.; Avilla, E.; Dolovich, L. Health TAPESTRY: Co-designing interprofessional primary care programs for older adults using the persona-scenario method. BMC Fam. Pract. 2019, 20, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Worswick, L.; Little, C.; Ryan, K.; Carr, E. Interprofessional learning in primary care: An exploration of the service user experience leads to a new model for co-learning. Nurse Educ. Today 2015, 35, 283–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. van Dongen, J.J.J.; de Wit, M.; Smeets, H.W.H.; Stoffers, E.; van Bokhoven, M.A.; Daniëls, R. “They are talking about me, but not with me”: A focus group study to explore the patient perspective on interprofessional team meetings in primary care. Patient 2017, 10, 429–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. van Dongen, J.J.J.; Habets, I.G.J.; Beurskens, A.; van Bokhoven, M.A. Successful participation of patients in interprofessional team meetings: A qualitative study. Health Expect. 2017, 20, 724–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Molenaar, J.; Korstjens, I.; Hendrix, M.; de Vries, R.; Nieuwenhuijze, M. Needs of parents and professionals to improve shared decision-making in interprofessional maternity care practice: A qualitative study. Birth 2018, 45, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Körner, M.; Ehrhardt, H.; Steger, A.-K. Designing an interprofessional training program for shared decision making. J. Interprofessional Care 2013, 27, 146–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Koerner, M.; Wirtz, M.; Michaelis, M.; Ehrhardt, H.; Steger, A.-K.; Zerpies, E.; Bengel, J. A multicentre cluster-randomized controlled study to evaluate a train-the-trainer programme for implementing internal and external participation in medical rehabilitation. Clin. Rehabil. 2014, 28, 20–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Carr, E.C.; Worswick, L.; Wilcock, P.M.; Campion-Smith, C.; Hettinga, D. Improving services for back pain: Putting the patient at the centre of interprofessional education. Qual. Prim. Care 2012, 20, 345–353. [Google Scholar]
  41. Sitzia, J.; Cotterell, P.; Richardson, A. Interprofessional collaboration with service users in the development of cancer services: The Cancer Partnership Project. J. Interprofessional Care 2006, 20, 60–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Phillips, R.L.; Short, A.; Kenning, A.; Dugdale, P.; Nugus, P.; McGowan, R.; Greenfield, D. Achieving patient-centred care: The potential and challenge of the patient-as-professional role. Health Expect. 2015, 18, 2616–2628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sæbjørnsen, S.E.N.; Willumsen, E. Service user participation in interprofessional teams in child welfare in Norway: Vulnerable adolescents’ perceptions. Child Fam. Soc. Work. 2015, 22, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bolin, A. Children’s agency in interprofessional collaborative meetings in child welfare work. Child Fam. Soc. Work. 2014, 21, 502–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schoeb, V.; Staffoni, L.; Keel, S. Influence of interactional structure on patient’s participation during interprofessional discharge planning meetings in rehabilitation centers. J. Interprofessional Care 2019, 33, 536–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Tjia, J.; Clayton, M.; Chiriboga, G.; Staples, B.; Puerto, G.; Rappaport, L.; DeSanto-Madeya, S. Stakeholder-engaged process for refining the design of a clinical trial in home hospice. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2021, 21, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Reeves, S.; McMillan, S.E.; Kachan, N.; Paradis, E.; Leslie, M.; Kitto, S. Interprofessional collaboration and family member involvement in intensive care units: Emerging themes from a multi-sited ethnography. J. Interprofessional Care 2015, 29, 230–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Cancer Australia; Cancer Voices Australia. National Framework for Consumer Involvement in Cancer Control; Cancer Australia: Canberra, Australia, 2011.
  49. Olweny, C. The ethics and conduct of cross-cultural research in developing countries. Psycho-Oncol. 1994, 3, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. NSW Council of Social Service. Principles of Co-Design. Available online: https://www.ncoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Codesign-principles.pdf (accessed on 11 August 2022).
  51. Kara, M.A. Applicability of the principle of respect for autonomy: The perspective of Turkey. Journal of Medical Ethics 2007, 33, 627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Chalmers, I.; Glasziou, P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. The Lancet 2009, 374, 86–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Glasziou, P.; Chalmers, I. Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers: Is 85% of health research really “wasted”? Available online: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2016/01/14/paul-glasziou-and-iain-chalmers-is-85-of-health-research-really-wasted/ (accessed on 14 September 2022).
  54. Abayneh, S.; Lempp, H.; Hanlon, C. Participatory action research to pilot a model of mental health service user involvement in an Ethiopian rural primary healthcare setting: Study protocol. Research Involvement and Engagement 2020, 6, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hutchinson, A.; Lovell, A. Participatory action research: Moving beyond the mental health ‘service user’ identity. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 2013, 20, 641–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bigby, C.; Frawley, P.; Ramcharan, P. Conceptualizing inclusive research with people with intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 2014, 27, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Chambers, E.; Gardiner, C.; Thompson, J.; Seymour, J. Patient and carer involvement in palliative care research: An integrative qualitative evidence synthesis review. Palliative Medicine 2019, 33, 969–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. DeCamp, M.; Alasmar, A.; Fischer, S.; Kutner, J.S. Meeting ethical challenges with authenticity when engaging patients and families in end-of-life and palliative care research: A qualitative study. BMC Palliative Care 2022, 21, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Lawson, W.B.; Carrington, S. Inclusive research practice: Engaging autistic individuals and their families in research. In Research Approaches to Supporting Students on the Autism Spectrum in Inclusive Schools: Outcomes, Challenges, and Impact; Carrington, S., Saggers, B., Harper-Hill, K., Whelan, M., Eds.; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2021; pp. 17–31. [Google Scholar]
Ijerph 19 16826 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow diagram of included studies.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of included studies.
Ijerph 19 16826 g001
Table
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria
PopulationPatients or service users who have received a healthcare service from a healthcare worker and/or their carer/s who have participated in an IPECP initiative with a healthcare workerPatients or service users who were not involved in an IPECP initiative with a healthcare worker
Intervention or
investigated
phenomena		 IPECP initiatives for entry-level and practicing professionals that involve healthcare workers from at least two professions working together with service user/s Education, research, and practice activities that are labelled as multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or transdisciplinary
Comparator No comparator No comparator
Outcome Description of the involvement of service users in the IPECP initiatives Outcomes that are not attributed to the involvement of service users
Research designs Primary research: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods designs Secondary research (i.e., reviews), conference abstracts/posters, study protocols, editorials/commentaries, position papers
Other English-language literature published from 2006 onwards Unpublished literature (e.g., grey literature, theses, and dissertation manuscripts)
Table
Table 2. Study characteristics.
Table 2. Study characteristics.
No.Author/s and YearDesignCountryParticipantsMeasuresSetting
ProfessionalsService Users
1Bolin, 2014 [44]QualitativeSwedenSocial workers and professionals in child psychiatryChildren receiving social services (n = 28)Attendance in collaborative meetingsPractice
2Carr et al., 2012 [40]QualitativeUnited KingdomGeneral practitioners, nurses, physiotherapists, and managers (n = 44)Clients with back pain (n = 11)Participation in workshops for qualityEducation
3Koerner et al., 2014 [39]QuantitativeGermany Physicians, nursing staff, physical therapists, sport teachers, masseurs, psychologists and other psychosocial therapists, dietitians, and social workersClients with chronic diseaseParticipation on a survey for a training program evaluationPractice
4Körner et al., 2013 [38]Mixed
methods		GermanyPhysicians, nursing staff, physical therapists, sport teachers, masseurs, psychologists and other psychosocial therapists, dietitians, and social workers (n = 32)Rehabilitation clients (n = 36)Involvement in focus group discussions in developing a training program for health professionalsPractice
5Metersky et al., 2021 [32]QualitativeCanada Nurses, social workers, dietitians, pharmacists, a nurse practitioner, and a respiratory therapist (n = 10)Clients with chronic disease diagnosis (n = 10)Participation in group interviews for designing interprofessional teamsPractice/research
6Molenaar et al., 2018 [37]QualitativeNetherlandsPrimary care midwives, hospital-based midwives, obstetricians, obstetric nurses, and maternity care assistantsPregnant women and their partners (n = 71)Involvement in co-creating a shared decision-making modelPractice
7Phillips et al., 2015 [42]QualitativeAustraliaNurses, physiotherapists, exercise physiologists, fitness instructors, social workers, and general practitioners (n = 14)Clients with chronic disease and their carers (n = 55)Participation in interviews to describe ‘patient as professional’ rolePractice
8Reeves et al., 2015 [47]QualitativeUSA and CanadaNurses, doctors, pharmacists, and social workersClients from the intensive care unitInvolvement of family members in co-designing the treatment planPractice/education
9Sæbjørnsen & Willumsen, 2015 [43]QualitativeNorwaySocial workers, childcare specialists, and therapistsChildren receiving social welfare services Participation in children conferences Practice
10Schoeb et al., 2019 [45]QualitativeSwitzerlandDoctors, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, social workers, psychologists, speech therapists, dieticians, and work rehabilitation staffClients with various conditions (n = 25)Participation in interprofessional meetings for discharge planningPractice
11Sitzia et al., 2006 [41]QualitativeUnited KingdomNurses, doctors, administrators, and managersClients with cancer (n = 59)Involvement in project evaluation through interviewsPractice
12Tjia et al., 2021 [46]QualitativeUSAHospice administrator, nurses, physicians, pharmacists (n = 8)Former family caregivers (n = 10)Involvement in stakeholder panel meetingsPractice
13Valaitis et al., 2019 [33]QualitativeCanadaHealthcare providers/community care providers (n = 29),
community service providers (n = 12),
volunteers (n = 14)		Clients with complex and chronic conditions (n = 70)Involvement in designing a primary care servicePractice
14van Dongen et al., 2017 [36] QualitativeNetherlandsHealthcare professionals (n = 8)Clients with chronic conditions and their relatives (n = 11)Participation in interprofessional meetingsPractice
15Van Dongen et al., 2017 [35]QualitativeNetherlandsFamily medicine and occupational therapistClients with chronic conditions (n = 7)Participation in interprofessional team meetingsPractice/research
16Worswick et al., 2015 [34]QualitativeCanadaPrimary healthcare professionalsClients with back pain (n = 11)Participation in workshopsPractice/education
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sy, M.P.; Panotes, A.; Cho, D.; Pineda, R.C.; Martin, P. A Rapid Review of the Factors That Influence Service User Involvement in Interprofessional Education, Practice, and Research. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16826. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416826

AMA Style

Sy MP, Panotes A, Cho D, Pineda RC, Martin P. A Rapid Review of the Factors That Influence Service User Involvement in Interprofessional Education, Practice, and Research. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(24):16826. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416826

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sy, Michael Palapal, Arden Panotes, Daniella Cho, Roi Charles Pineda, and Priya Martin. 2022. "A Rapid Review of the Factors That Influence Service User Involvement in Interprofessional Education, Practice, and Research" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 24: 16826. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416826

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop