Co-designing interventions within quality improvement initiatives: Notes from the field
Open accessAbstract
Increasingly, quality improvement programmes are developed with an explicit mandate to involve patients, carers, and members of the public. A quality improvement and research programme in Northwest London has nearly a decade of experience in this field. This article provides an overview of how improvement initiatives supported by the programme have involved patients in the co-design of interventions within various clinical settings. Reflections on some of the challenges and facilitators are offered. Extending roles for patients beyond co-designing interventions to involving them in implementation offers new levels of engagement and transparency.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Our study combined 2 distinct participatory research coproduction methodologies with end users-the participatory research workshops to design and build the intervention and consultation meetings to provide feedback on drafts along the rapid prototyping cycles-in parallel and interacting with one another.
“Our study combined 2 distinct participatory research coproduction methodologies with end users—the participatory research workshops to design and build the intervention and consultation meetings to provide feedback on drafts along the rapid prototyping cycles—in parallel and interacting with one another [29,52,58].”
From A multicomponent eHealth intervention for family Carers for people affected by psychosis: a coproduced design and build study (2019) · cites this paper as [58]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 8
- Authors
- Green, S. A., Carnegie, W., Barber, S., Matthew, D., & Matthews, R.
- Affiliations
- Imperial College London (GB)
- Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- Venue
- The Journal of Health Design
- Publisher
- Journal of Health Design
- Published
- 2018-03-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 49-56
- ISSN
- 2206-785X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2790600054
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 5
- FWCI
- 2.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- The Journal of Health Design (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
- Keywords
- co-design, patient involvement, quality improvement, patient and public involvement, intervention development, implementation, patient engagement, transparency, clinical settings
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
