Patient participation in the assessment of alternatives to restraint and seclusion;La participation des patients à l'évaluation des mesures alternatives à la contention et à l'isolement

Sante Publique

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 217-226

  Dipankui, Mylène Tantchou ^a   Gagnon, Marie Pierre ^a,b   Desmartis, Marie ^a   Legaré, France ^a,b   Piron, Florence ^b   Gagnon, Johanne ^a,b   Rhainds, Marc ^c   Coulombe, Martin ^c  

^a University Laval   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

^c LAVAL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Long term care; Mental health; Patient isolation; Patient participation; Restraint, Physical; Seclusion; Technology assessment, Biomedical

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EXERCISE; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; HUMANS; PATIENT ISOLATION; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; RESTRAINT, PHYSICAL;

EID: 84903217489     PISSN: 09953914     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3917/spub.138.0217     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Henshall C, Oortwijn W, Stevens A, Granados A, Banta D. Priority Setting for Health Technology Assessment: Theoretical Considerations and Practical Approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13(2): 144-85.
2. Health Equality Europe. Understanding Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Bâle (Suisse): Health Equality Europe (En); 2008. 48 p.
3. Agence canadienne des médicaments et des technologies en santé. L'Agence canadienne des médicaments et des technologies de la santé désigne une représentante du public pour son Comité d'experts en examen sur les technologies de la santé [Internet]. Ottawa; [cited: 2011 Aug 20]. Available from: .
4. British medical association. Patient and public involvement - a toolkit for doctors. London (UK): BMA (En); 2011. 12 p.
5. Gagnon MP, Lepage-Savary D, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Simard C, Rhainds M, et al. Introducing patient perspective in health technology assessment at the local level. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009(9):54.
6. Unité d'évaluation des technologies et des modes d'intervention en santé du Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec. Guide méthodologique: Recherche et analyse documentaires visant la réalisation d'un rapport d'évaluation et d'un avis préliminaire. Québec: CHUQ de Québec (Fr); 2007. 79 p.
7. Canadian agency for drugs and technologies in health. Scanning the horizon: informing decision-makers about emerging medical technologies, policies, practices, and research. Health technology update. 2010(13): 1-8.
8. McGregor M, Brophy MJ. End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: A way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(2): 263-7.
9. Menon D, Stafinski T. Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(1): 75-89.
10. Kreis J, Schmidt H. Public engagement in health technology assessment and coverage decisions: a study of experiences in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2013;38(1): 89-122.
11. Messina J, Grainger DL. A pilot study to identify areas for further improvements in patient and public involvement in health technology assessments for medicines. Patient. 2012;5(3): 199-211.
12. Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Lepage-Savary D, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Rhainds M, Lemieux R, et al. Introducing patients' and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(1): 31-42.
13. Gagnon MP, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Gauvin FP, Piron F, Rhainds M, et al. Involving patients in HTA activities at local level: a study protocol based on the collaboration between researchers and knowledge users. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:14.
14. Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux. Vers un changement de pratique afin de réduire le recours à la contention et à l'isolement. Québec: Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux (Fr); 2008. 67 p.
15. Unité d'évaluation des technologies et des modes d'intervention en santé du CHU de Québec. Évaluation des pratiques, des barrières et des facilitateurs de l'implantation des mesures de remplacement de la contention et de l'isolement dans le RUIS de l'Université Laval. Québec: CHU de Québec (Fr); 2013. 50 p.
16. Abelson J, Montesanti S, Li K, Gauvin FP, Martin E. Stratégies de participation publique efficace à l'élaboration des politiques et des programmes de santé. Ottawa: Fondation canadienne de la recherche sur les services de santé (Fr); 2010. 50 p.
17. Université Laval, Direction de la Communication. Projet santé: La santé ici et maintenant [Internet]. Quebec; [cited: 2013 Apr 23]. Available from: .
18. Huberman MA, Miles MB. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks (USA): Sage Publications; 1994.
19. Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux. Plan d'action en santé mentale 2005-2010 - La force des liens. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec (Fr); 2005. 96 p.
20. Guideline international network. G-I-N PUBLIC Toolkit: Patient and Public Involvement in Guidelines. Berlin: Guideline International Network; 2012. Chapter 2, How to recruit and support patients and the public in guideline development; p. 27-38.
21. Kelson M. Patient involvement in NICE technology appraisals. Paper presented at: XVI Cochrane Colloquium; 2008 Oct 3-7; Freiburg, Germany.
22. Ahern E, Thavaneswaran P, Babidge W, Maddern GJ. Consumer perspectives in surgical research and audit. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(04): 337-42.
23. Rowe G, Frewer LJ. Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Sci Technol Human Values. 2000;25(1): 3-29.
24. Milewa T. Representation and legitimacy in health policy formulation at a national level: Perspectives from a study of health technology eligibility procedures in the United Kingdom. Health Policy. 2008;85(3): 356-62.
25. Staley K. Exploring Impact: Public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE (En); 2009. 116 p.
26. Sainsbury centre for mental health. An evaluation of mental health service user involvement in the re-commissioning of day and vocational services. London: Sainsbury centre for mental health (En); 2010. 37 p.
27. Berry JM, Portney KE, Bablitch MB, Mahoney R. Public Involvement in Administration: the Structural Determinants of Effective Citizen Participation. J Volunt Action Res. 1984;13(2): 7-23.
28. Oliver S, Armes D, Gyte G. Evaluation on public influence of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme London: University of London (En); 2006. 12 p.
29. Crosby N, Kelly JM, Schaefer P. Citizens Panels: A New Approach to Citizen Participation. Public Adm Rev. 1986;46(2): 170-8.
30. Royle J, Oliver S. Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20(4): 493-7.
31. MASS LBP. Engaging with impact: Targets and indicators for successful community engagement by Ontario's Local Health Integration Networks Toronto: MASSLBP; 2009. Section 2.1, A comprehensive approach to evaluating deliberative public engagement; p. 15-27.
32. Davies C, Wetherell M, Barnett E, Seymour-Smith S. Opening The Box: Evaluating the Citizens Council of NICE. Milton Keynes (GB): The Open University (En); 2005. 244 p.
33. Oliver S, Milne R, Bradburn J, et al. Involving consumers in a needsled research programme: a pilot project. Health Expect. 2001(4): 18-28.
34. MASS LBP. Engaging with impact: Targets and indicators for successful community engagement by Ontario's Local Health Integration Networks. Toronto: MASS LBP; 2009. Section 2.2, The Canadian experience: Observations and lessons from the Canadian health sector; p. 28-41.
35. Menon D, Stafinski T. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens' jury. Health Expect. 2008;11(3): 282-93.
36. UK Clinical Research Collaboration and TwoCan Associates. An evaluation of the process and impact of patient and public involvement in the advisory groups of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration. London: UK Clinical Research Collaboration (En); 2009. 69 p.