Mapping the role of patient and public involvement during the different stages of healthcare innovation: A scoping review

Victoria Cluley; Alexandra Ziemann; Claire Feeley; Ellinor K Olander; Shani Shamah; Charitini Stavropoulou

doi:10.1111/hex.13437

Mapping the role of patient and public involvement during the different stages of healthcare innovation: A scoping review

Health Expect. 2022 Jun;25(3):840-855. doi: 10.1111/hex.13437. Epub 2022 Feb 17.

Authors

Victoria Cluley¹, Alexandra Ziemann², Claire Feeley³, Ellinor K Olander⁴, Shani Shamah⁵, Charitini Stavropoulou^{2

6}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
² Centre for Healthcare Innovation Research, City, University of London, London, UK.
³ School of Community Health and Midwifery, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
⁴ Centre for Maternal and Child Health Research, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.
⁵ Service-User, Research (Public Patient Involvement) Consultant, Independent, London, UK.
⁶ School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.

Abstract

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become increasingly important in the development, delivery and improvement of healthcare. PPI is used in healthcare innovation; yet, how it is used has been under-reported. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and map the current available empirical evidence on the role of PPI during different stages of healthcare innovation.

Methods: The scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMAScR and included any study published in a peer-reviewed journal between 2004 and 2021 that reported on PPI in healthcare innovation within any healthcare setting or context in any country. The following databases were searched: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, HMIC and Google Scholar. We included any study type, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies. We excluded theoretical frameworks, conceptual, scientific or grey literature as well as discussion and opinion papers.

Results: Of the 87 included studies, 81 (93%) focused on or were conducted by authors in developed countries. A wide range of conditions were considered, with more studies focusing on mental health (n = 18, 21%) and cancer care (n = 8, 9%). The vast majority of the studies focused on process and service innovations (n = 62, 71%). Seven studies focused on technological and clinical innovations (8%), while 12 looked at both technological and service innovations (14%). Only five studies examined systems innovation (5%) and one study looked across all types of innovations (1%). PPI is more common in the earlier stages of innovation, particularly problem identification and invention, in comparison to adoption and diffusion.

Conclusion: Healthcare innovation tends to be a lengthy process. Yet, our study highlights that PPI is more common across earlier stages of innovation and focuses mostly on service innovation. Stronger PPI in later stages could support the adoption and diffusion of innovation.

Patient or public contribution: One of the coauthors of the paper (S. S.) is a service user with extensive experience in PPI research. S. S. supported the analysis and writing up of the paper.

Keywords: healthcare innovation; patient and public involvement; scoping review.

Publication types

Review

MeSH terms

Health Facilities
Health Services*
Humans
Patient Participation*
Research Design