Search

Purpose Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is the most common type of scoliosis that affects children aged 10 to 18 years old, manifesting in a three dimensional spinal deformity. This study aimed to explore outcome measures used in defining AIS treatment success. Particularly, analyzing the extent of radiographic and quality of life domains used and whether AIS treatment approaches (surgical, bracing, physiotherapy etc.) influences outcomes used as proxies of treatment success. Methods EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were used to conduct a systematic scoping review with 158 papers screened for data extraction. Extractable variables included: study characteristics, study participant characteristics, type of study, type of intervention approach and outcome measures. Results All 158 studies measured quantitative outcomes. 61.38% of papers used radiographic outcomes whilst 38.62% of papers used quantitative quality of life outcomes to evaluate treatment success. Irrespective of treatment intervention utilized, the type of quantitative outcome measure recorded did not differ significantly. Moreover, of the radiographic outcome measures, the subcategory Cobb angle was predominantly used across all intervention approaches. For quantitative quality of life measures, questionnaires investigating multiple domains such as SRS were primarily used as proxies of AIS treatment success across all intervention approaches. Conclusion This study identified that no articles employed qualitative measures of describing the psychosocial implications of AIS in defining treatment success. Although quantitative measures have merit in clinical diagnoses and management, there is increasing value in using qualitative methods such as thematic analysis in guiding clinicians to develop a biopsychosocial approach for patient care.

Background Recently, patient engagement has been identified as a promising strategy for supporting healthcare planning. However, the context and structure of universalistic, “one-size-fits-all” approaches often used for patient engagement may not enable diverse patients to participate in decision-making about programs intended to meet their needs. Specifically, standard patient engagement approaches are gender-blind and might not facilitate the engagement of those marginalized by, for example, substance use, low income, experiences of violence, homelessness, and/or mental health challenges—highly gendered health and social experiences. The project’s purpose was to develop a heuristic model to assist planners to engage patients who are not traditionally included in healthcare planning. Methods Using a qualitative research approach, we reviewed literature and conducted interviews with patients and healthcare planners regarding engaging marginalized populations in health services planning. From these inputs, we created a model and planning manual to assist healthcare planners to engage marginalized patients in health services planning, which we piloted in two clinical programs undergoing health services design. The findings from the pilots were used to refine the model. Results The analysis of the interviews and literature identified power and gender as barriers to participation, and generated suggestions to support diverse populations both to attend patient engagement events and to participate meaningfully. Engaging marginalized populations cannot be reduced to a single defined process, but instead needs to be understood as an iterative process of fitting engagement methods to a particular situation. Underlying this process are principles for meaningfully engaging marginalized people in healthcare planning. Conclusion A one-size-fits-all approach to patient engagement is not appropriate given patients’ diverse barriers to meaningful participation in healthcare planning. Instead, planners need a repertoire of skills and strategies to align the purpose of engagement with the capacities and needs of patient participants. Just as services need to meet diverse patients’ needs, so too must patient engagement experiences. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2969-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.