Patient-Centered Participatory Research in Three Health Clinics: Benefits, Challenges, and Lessons Learned.
Nicole M Fava, Michelle L Munro-Kramer, Irene L Felicetti and 5 others
PMID 27338752WHAT IT FOUND
Youth clinic providers and patients reported more open sexual health conversations when using the Sexual Risk Event History Calendar, but the participatory process took time and required changes when clinics dropped out.
Key findings
01Across the three clinics, patient and provider stakeholders reported that patient-centered communication improved and that patients shared more information.
02Providers reported that, after using the SREHC, they learned about patients' risk behaviors and made more personalized recommendations or referrals.
03The participatory process was difficult to sustain: original clinics withdrew, youth were transient, and the STI clinic faced stigma, limited hours, and staff turnover.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The paper reports stakeholder experiences and process themes, not a controlled outcome analysis. Benefits were self-reported by patients and providers, with no objective sexual health outcomes measured in this paper. The paper gives a total of 181 patients and also gives site patient counts of 18, 66, and 102. The analysed denominator is unclear. Only 9 providers were involved, and involvement varied widely across sites. The original clinics withdrew and were replaced, which the authors say was not ideal for pure participatory research. The STI clinic had low stakeholder involvement, administrative partnership problems, and high loss from recruitment to follow-up. The SREHC was used within a broader participatory process, so the effect of the tool alone cannot be separated.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the reported communication improvements as proof that the SREHC works clinically. This paper describes stakeholder experiences and process challenges, not the larger trial's primary outcome. The benefits occurred alongside the SREHC, ongoing stakeholder feedback, and routine clinic care, so the contribution of any single component cannot be separated.