You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Rehabilitation medicine
Original research
Patient experiences of codesigned rehabilitation interventions in hospitals: a rapid review
  1. Jonathan P McKercher1,
  2. Susan C Slade2,
  3. Jalal A Jazayeri1,
  4. Anita Hodge3,
  5. Matthew Knight4,
  6. Janet Green5,
  7. Jeffrey Woods1,
  8. Claire Thwaites1,4,
  9. Meg E Morris1,4
  1. 1ARCH, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2Department of Physiotherapy, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
  3. 3Healthscope Limited, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  4. 4The Victorian Rehabilitation Centre, Glen Waverley, Victoria, Australia
  5. 5School of Nursing, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Meg E Morris; m.morris{at}latrobe.edu.au

Abstract

Background Codesign strengthens partnerships between healthcare workers and patients. It also facilitates collaborations supporting the development, design and delivery of healthcare services. Prior rehabilitation reviews have focused mainly on the clinical and organisational outcomes of codesign with less focus on the lived experience of rehabilitation patients.

Objective To explore patient experiences of codesigned hospital rehabilitation interventions.

Design Rapid review and evidence synthesis of the literature.

Data sources CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane were searched from 1 January 2000 to 25 April 2022.

Study selection Studies reporting patient experiences of codesigned rehabilitation interventions in hospitals.

Results 4156 studies were screened, and 38 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility. Seven studies were included in the final rapid review. Five out of the seven studies involved neurological rehabilitation. All eligible studies used qualitative research methods. The main barriers to codesign were related to staffing and dedicated time allocated to face-to-face patient-therapist interactions. High-quality relationships between patients and their therapists were a facilitator of codesign. Thematic synthesis revealed that codesigned rehabilitation interventions can enable a meaningful experience for patients and facilitate tailoring of treatments to align with individual needs. Personalised rehabilitation increases patient involvement in rehabilitation planning, delivery and decision-making. It also promotes positive feelings of empowerment and hope.

Conclusion This rapid review supports the implementation of codesigned rehabilitation interventions to improve patient experiences in hospitals.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42021264547.

  • rehabilitation medicine
  • quality in health care
  • health policy

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. Data are available by emailing m.morris@latrobe.edu.au.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068241

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available on reasonable request. Data are available by emailing m.morris@latrobe.edu.au.

    View Full Text

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Contributors JPM, SCS, JAJ and MEM designed the study and formulated the research question and search terms. JPM, SCS, JAJ, AH, MK, JG, JW, CT and MEM assisted in the planning for this rapid review. JPM, SCS, CT and MEM were involved in the study screening and review process. JPM, CT and MEM completed the data extraction and the method quality assessment of the included studies. JPM wrote the draft manuscripts, which were edited by SCS and MEM. All authors reviewed the final manuscript before publication.

    • Funding This project was funded by the La Trobe University, Academic and Research Collaborative in Health. Award/grant number: N/A.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.