Search

Objective: To explore patients' experiences with online health communities in which both physicians and patients participate (i.e. patient-to-doctor or 'P2D' communities)., Methods: A qualitative content analysis was conducted, based on observations in five P2D communities ranging from 8 to 21 months, and semi-structured interviews (N=17) with patients., Results: Patients consider information from physicians and peers as two distinct sources, value both sources differently and appreciate accessing both in the same web space. According to respondents, physicians can provide 'reliable' and evidence-based information, while patients add experience-based information. Patients use this information for multiple purposes, including being informed about scientific research and personal reflection., Conclusion: Patients find P2D communities beneficial because they help patients to collect information from both medical experts and experiential experts in one place., Practice Implications: Patients use P2D communities to perform medical, emotional and lifestyle activities. The presence of physicians in P2D communities may inadvertently suggest that the quality of information used for the activities, is controlled. When information is not officially being checked, this should be stated explicitly on the website and supplemented with a statement that information is only indicative and that patients should at all times contact their own physicians., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Co-production in healthcare is receiving increasing attention; however, insight into the process of co-production is scarce. This article explores why hospitals involve patients and staff in co-production activities and hospitals’ experiences with co-production in practice. A qualitative study with semi-structured interviews (N = 27), observations (70 hours) and document analysis was conducted in five Dutch hospitals, which involved patients and staff in order to improve services. The results show that hospitals have different motives to involve patients and staff and have adapted existing methods to involve patients. Interestingly, areas of improvement proposed by patients were often already known. However, the process of co-production did contribute to quality improvement in other ways. The process of co-production stimulated hospitals’ thinking about how to realize quality improvements. Quality improvements were facilitated by this process as seeing patients and hearing their experiences created a sense of urgency among staff to act on the improvement issues raised. Moreover, the experiences served to legitimatize improvements to higher management bodies. Points for practitioners Different participation methods can bring patients’ experiences with healthcare services to the fore, which can be used for quality improvement. Our study shows that adapting existing methods to local hospital resources is likely to be beneficial for co-production processes within a given context. However, adapting and tailoring also poses risks. Tailoring activities, such as using criteria to select patients, influence what is considered to be legitimate patient input. In addition, as the co-production process is important, the method should consist of an organized trajectory in which patients and staff are involved and personal experiences are presented. Therefore, project teams need to critically reflect on the consequences of adaptations and tailoring actions, and their desirability, when carrying out quality improvement projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to improve the general operationalization of an “active patient,” by examining the specific activities and skills expected of active patients. Design/methodology/approach – Expected activities and necessary skills were studied through a qualitative case study into the development and use of an assistive technology (i.e. web site) aimed at stimulating active patient-ship. Interviews, observations and document analysis were used to capture and explore designers’ inscribing practices and their consequences regarding expected competences and activities of patients using the web site. Findings – Designers inscribed two “co-design roles” that active patients were expected to perform on the web site (co-designing their own healthcare and co-designing the healthcare of peers), for which at least eight different competencies were needed. The absence of skills or facilities to apply these skills resulted in incomplete use, a different use than intended by designers and non-use of the web site. Practical implications – Technological choices and inscribing processes determine who is able or facilitated to become active and who is not. Due to inscribed co-design roles, it also influences the extent to which already active peers are able to perform health-related activities. Different users with different conditions should be taken into account in the design as specific group characteristics can influence level of individual activity. Originality/value – This study is, as far as the authors know, the first that examines the “active patient” concept by studying an assistive technology and using scripting literature, resulting in an improved understanding of what it means to become “active” in terms of skills and activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]