Public perspectives on acquired brain injury rehabilitation and components of care: A Citizens' Jury

被引:6
作者
Lannin, Natasha A. [1 ,2 ]
Coulter, Megan [2 ]
Laver, Kate [3 ]
Hyett, Nerida [4 ]
Ratcliffe, Julie [5 ]
Holland, Anne E. [6 ,7 ]
Callaway, Libby [8 ]
English, Coralie [9 ]
Bragge, Peter [10 ]
Hill, Sophie [11 ,12 ]
Unsworth, Carolyn A. [1 ,13 ,14 ]
机构
[1] Monash Univ, Cent Clin Sch, Dept Neurosci, Clayton, Vic, Australia
[2] Alfred Hlth, Occupat Therapy Dept, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[3] Flinders Univ S Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[4] La Trobe Univ, La Trobe Rural Hlth Sch, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[5] Flinders Univ S Australia, Coll Nursing & Hlth Sci, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[6] Monash Univ, Cent Clin Sch, Clayton, Vic, Australia
[7] Alfred Hlth, Physiotherapy Dept, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[8] Monash Univ, Clayton, Vic, Australia
[9] Univ Newcastle, Prior Res Ctr Stroke & Brain Injury, Sch Hlth Sci, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
[10] Monash Univ, Monash Sustainable Dev Inst, Behav Works Australia, Clayton, Vic, Australia
[11] La Trobe Univ, Ctr Hlth Commun & Participat, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[12] La Trobe Univ, Sch Psychol & Publ Hlth, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[13] Federat Univ, Sch Hlth, Churchill, Vic, Australia
[14] Jonkoping Univ, Dept Rehabil, Jonkoping, Sweden
关键词
consumer participation; decision making; deliberative methods; health policy; traumatic brain injury; DECISION-MAKING; HEALTH-CARE; JURIES; DELIBERATIONS; INDIVIDUALS; WANT;
D O I
10.1111/hex.13176
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Brain injury rehabilitation is an expensive and long-term endeavour. Very little published information or debate has underpinned policy for service delivery in Australia. Within the context of finite health budgets and the challenges associated with providing optimal care to persons with brain injuries, members of the public were asked 'What considerations are important to include in a model of care of brain injury rehabilitation?' Methods Qualitative study using the Citizen Jury method of participatory research. Twelve adult jurors from the community and seven witnesses participated including a health services funding model expert, peak body representative with lived experience of brain injury, carer of a person with a brain injury, and brain injury rehabilitation specialists. Witnesses were cross-examined by jurors over two days. Results Key themes related to the need for a model of rehabilitation to: be consumer-focused and supporting the retention of hope; be long-term; provide equitable access to services irrespective of funding source; be inclusive of family; provide advocacy; raise public awareness; and be delivered by experts in a suitable environment. A set of eight recommendations were made. Conclusion Instigating the recommendations made requires careful consideration of the need for new models of care with flexible services; family involvement; recruitment and retention of highly skilled staff; and providing consumer-focused services that prepare individuals and their carers for the long term. Patient and public contribution As jury members, the public deliberated information provided by expert witnesses (including a person with a head injury) and wrote the key recommendations.
引用
收藏
页码:352 / 362
页数:11
相关论文
共 43 条
[21]   Provision of resource facilitation services for individuals with acquired brain injury across the United States: results of a 2018 resource facilitator provider survey [J].
Ibarra, Summer ;
Parrott, Devan ;
Waldman, Wendy ;
Hammond, Flora M. ;
Dillahunt-Aspillaga, Christina ;
Trexler, Lance .
BRAIN INJURY, 2020, 34 (06) :732-740
[22]  
Keenan Alanna, 2010, Can J Neurosci Nurs, V32, P25
[23]  
Kendall E, 1994, CITIZENS JURIES
[24]   The experiences of individuals with a traumatic brain injury, families, physicians and health professionals regarding care provided throughout the continuum [J].
Lefebvre, H ;
Pelchat, D ;
Swaine, B ;
Gélinas, I ;
Levert, MJ .
BRAIN INJURY, 2005, 19 (08) :585-597
[25]   Fostering deliberations about health innovation: What do we want to know from publics? [J].
Lehoux, Pascale ;
Daudelin, Genevieve ;
Demers-Payette, Olivier ;
Boivin, Antoine .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2009, 68 (11) :2002-2009
[26]   Setting priorities: Is there a role for citizens' juries? [J].
Lenaghan, J ;
New, B ;
Mitchell, E .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1996, 312 (7046) :1591-1593
[27]   Experience of recovery and outcome following traumatic brain injury: a metasynthesis of qualitative research [J].
Levack, William M. M. ;
Kayes, Nicola M. ;
Fadyl, Joanna K. .
DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION, 2010, 32 (12) :986-999
[28]   Priority-setting for healthcare: Who, how, and is it fair? [J].
Menon, Devidas ;
Stafinski, Tania ;
Martin, Douglas .
HEALTH POLICY, 2007, 84 (2-3) :220-233
[29]   Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review [J].
Mitton, Craig ;
Smith, Neale ;
Peacock, Stuart ;
Evoy, Brian ;
Abelson, Julia .
HEALTH POLICY, 2009, 91 (03) :219-228
[30]   Cystic fibrosis: to screen or not to screen? Involving a Citizens' jury in decisions on screening carrier [J].
Mosconi, Paola ;
Castellani, Carlo ;
Villani, Walter ;
Satolli, Roberto .
HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2015, 18 (06) :1956-1967