IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0336245.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient and public involvement in developing and validating an instrument for assessing the scaling potential of innovations in health and social services: A consensus study

Author

Listed:
  • Roberta de Carvalho Corôa
  • Ali Ben Charif
  • Claude Bernard Uwizeye
  • Florence Lizotte
  • Amédé Gogovor
  • Robert KD McLean
  • Andrew Milat
  • Léonel Philibert
  • Louisa Blair
  • Kathy Kastner
  • Jean-Sébastien Renaud
  • France Légaré

Abstract

Background: Before proven health innovations are scaled, an assessment of their scaling potential can save resources and assure quality at scale. Involving the beneficiaries of scaling is necessary for it to be effective and relevant. We aimed to develop, with patient and public involvement (PPI), an instrument for assessing the scalability of innovations in health and social services and to establish content validity. Methods: We conducted a multiphase study based on the Integrated Knowledge Translation approach and the Montreal Model for PPI. A steering committee provided feedback throughout the project. Informed by a systematic review, the research team and steering committee selected promising items for inclusion in the instrument. In a two-round online Delphi process, patients and public representatives and other expert panellists reached consensus on the relevance, clarity and necessity of each item. Finally, with a patient partner and two scaling teams we developed the instrument and a manual. Results: The steering committee consisted of a patient partner, an expert in health measures and two policymakers who were experts in scaling. Based on the systematic review, we retained 43 items covering 12 domains. Two new items related to PPI and sex- and gender-sensitive scaling were validated by the committee. A 24-member Delphi panel assessed the resulting 45 items for content validity. Patients and public representatives constituted 29.1% of the panel and researchers 25%. Fourteen items were excluded for not reaching content validity thresholds. The final selection included three items added by panellists (consideration of national and local legislation, disadvantages of not scaling, and equity). Despite a low score, an item on sex and gender was retained as being essential for redressing consequences of inequities in health research. Conclusion: The final tool, the Innovation Scalability Self-administered Questionnaire (ISSaQ 4.0), includes 37 items across 12 domains and is available in French and English.

Suggested Citation

  • Roberta de Carvalho Corôa & Ali Ben Charif & Claude Bernard Uwizeye & Florence Lizotte & Amédé Gogovor & Robert KD McLean & Andrew Milat & Léonel Philibert & Louisa Blair & Kathy Kastner & Jean-Sébast, 2025. "Patient and public involvement in developing and validating an instrument for assessing the scaling potential of innovations in health and social services: A consensus study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(11), pages 1-19, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0336245
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0336245
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0336245
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0336245&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0336245?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0336245. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.