Strategies for involving patients and the public in scaling initiatives in health and social services: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Scaling in health and social services (HSS) aims to increase the intended impact of proven effective interventions. Patient and public involvement (PPI) is critical for ensuring that scaling beneficiaries' interests are served. We aimed to identify PPI strategies and their characteristics in the science and practice of scaling in HSS. METHODS: In this scoping review, we included any scaling initiative in HSS that used PPI strategies and reported PPI methods and outcomes. We searched electronic databases (e.g., Medline) from inception to 5 February 2024, and grey literature (e.g., Google). Paired reviewers independently selected and extracted eligible reports. A narrative synthesis was performed and we used the PRISMA for Scoping Reviews and the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2). FINDINGS: We included 110 unique reports out of 24,579 records. In the past 5 years, the evidence on PPI in scaling has increased faster than in any previous period. We found 236 mutually nonexclusive PPI strategies among 120 scaling initiatives. Twenty-four initiatives did not target a specific country; but most of those that did so (n = 96) occurred in higher-income countries (n = 51). Community-based primary health care was the most frequent level of care (n = 103). Mostly, patients and the public were involved throughout all scaling phases (n = 46) and throughout the continuum of collaboration (n = 45); the most frequently reported ethical lens regarding the rationale for PPI was consequentialist-utilitarian (n = 96). Few papers reported PPI recruitment processes (n = 31) or incentives used (n = 18). PPI strategies occurred mostly in direct care (n = 88). Patient and public education was the PPI strategy most reported (n = 31), followed by population consultations (n = 30). CONCLUSIONS: PPI in scaling is increasing in HSS. Further investigation is needed to better document the PPI experience in scaling and ensure that it occurs in a meaningful and equitable way. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two patients were involved in this review. They shared decisions on review questions, data collection instruments, protocol design, and findings dissemination. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework on 19 August 2020 (https://osf.io/zqpx7/).

Tools for assessing the scalability of innovations in health: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The last decade has seen growing interest in scaling up of innovations to strengthen healthcare systems. However, the lack of appropriate methods for determining their potential for scale-up is an unfortunate global handicap. Thus, we aimed to review tools proposed for assessing the scalability of innovations in health. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review following the COSMIN methodology. We included any empirical research which aimed to investigate the creation, validation or interpretability of a scalability assessment tool in health. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and ERIC from their inception to 20 March 2019. We also searched relevant websites, screened the reference lists of relevant reports and consulted experts in the field. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted eligible reports and assessed the methodological quality of tools. We summarized data using a narrative approach involving thematic syntheses and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We identified 31 reports describing 21 tools. Types of tools included criteria (47.6%), scales (33.3%) and checklists (19.0%). Most tools were published from 2010 onwards (90.5%), in open-access sources (85.7%) and funded by governmental or nongovernmental organizations (76.2%). All tools were in English; four were translated into French or Spanish (19.0%). Tool creation involved single (23.8%) or multiple (19.0%) types of stakeholders, or stakeholder involvement was not reported (57.1%). No studies reported involving patients or the public, or reported the sex of tool creators. Tools were created for use in high-income countries (28.6%), low- or middle-income countries (19.0%), or both (9.5%), or for transferring innovations from low- or middle-income countries to high-income countries (4.8%). Healthcare levels included public or population health (47.6%), primary healthcare (33.3%) and home care (4.8%). Most tools provided limited information on content validity (85.7%), and none reported on other measurement properties. The methodological quality of tools was deemed inadequate (61.9%) or doubtful (38.1%). CONCLUSIONS: We inventoried tools for assessing the scalability of innovations in health. Existing tools are as yet of limited utility for assessing scalability in health. More work needs to be done to establish key psychometric properties of these tools. Trial registration We registered this review with PROSPERO (identifier: CRD42019107095).

How Can Health Systems Better Prepare for the Next Pandemic? Lessons Learned From the Management of COVID-19 in Quebec (Canada).

The magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic challenged societies around our globalized world. To contain the spread of the virus, unprecedented and drastic measures and policies were put in place by governments to manage an exceptional health care situation while maintaining other essential services. The responses of many governments showed a lack of preparedness to face this systemic and global health crisis. Drawing on field observations and available data on the first wave of the pandemic (mid-March to mid-May 2020) in Quebec (Canada), this article reviewed and discussed the successes and failures that characterized the management of COVID-19 in this province. Using the framework of Palagyi et al. on system preparedness toward emerging infectious diseases, we described and analyzed in a chronologically and narratively way: (1) how surveillance was structured; (2) how workforce issues were managed; (3) what infrastructures and medical supplies were made available; (4) what communication mechanisms were put in place; (5) what form of governance emerged; and (6) whether trust was established and maintained throughout the crisis. Our findings and observations stress that resilience and ability to adequately respond to a systemic and global crisis depend upon preexisting system-level characteristics and capacities at both the provincial and federal governance levels. By providing recommendations for policy and practice from a learning health system perspective, this paper contributes to the groundwork required for interdisciplinary research and genuine policy discussions to help health systems better prepare for future pandemics.