Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23742265›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2013

Investigating the use of patient involvement and patient experience in quality improvement in Norway: rhetoric or reality?

Siri Wiig, Marianne Storm, Karina Aase, Martha Therese Gjestsen, Marit Solheim, Stig Harthug, Glenn Robert, Naomi Fulop, QUASER team

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
18.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Perspectives of Healthcare Professionals and Managers on Patient Involvement in Care Pathway Development: A Discourse Analysis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Siri WiigDepartment of Health Studies, University of Stavanger, N-4036, Stavanger, Norway. siri.wiig@uis.no
Marianne Storm
Karina Aase
Martha Therese Gjestsen
Marit Solheim
Stig Harthug
Glenn Robert
Naomi Fulop
QUASER team
University of Stavanger · NOKing's College London · GBHaukeland University Hospital · NOHelse Førde · NOUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient involvement in health care decision making is part of a wider trend towards a more bottom-up approach to service planning and provision, and patient experience is increasingly conceptualized as a core dimension of health care quality.The aim of this multi-level study is two-fold: 1) to describe and analyze how governmental organizations expect acute hospitals to incorporate patient involvement and patient experiences into their quality improvement (QI) efforts and 2) to analyze how patient involvement and patient experiences are used by hospitals to try to improve the quality of care they provide.

methodsThis multi-level case study combines analysis of national policy documents and regulations at the macro level with semi-structured interviews and non-participant observation of key meetings and shadowing of staff at the meso and micro levels in two purposively sampled Norwegian hospitals. Fieldwork at the meso and micro levels was undertaken over a 12-month period (2011-2012).

resultsGovernmental documents and regulations at the macro level demonstrated wide-ranging expectations for the integration of patient involvement and patient experiences in QI work in hospitals. The expectations span from systematic collection of patients' and family members' experiences for the purpose of improving service quality through establishing patient-oriented arenas for ongoing collaboration with staff to the support of individual involvement in decision making. However, the extent of involvement of patients and application of patient experiences in QI work was limited at both hospitals. Even though patient involvement was gaining prominence at the meso level - and to a lesser extent at the micro level - relevant tools for measuring and using patient experiences in QI work were lacking, and available measures of patient experience were not being used meaningfully or systematically.

conclusionsThe relative lack of expertise in Norwegian hospitals of adapting and implementing tools and methods for improving patient involvement and patient experiences at the meso and micro levels mark a need for health care policymakers and hospital leaders to learn from experiences of other industries and countries that have successfully integrated user experiences into QI work. Hospital managers need to design and implement wider strategies to help their staff members recognize and value the contribution that patient involvement and patient experiences can make to the improvement of healthcare quality.

Indexed as

Health PolicyPatient ParticipationHealth Care ReformHospitalsHumansNorwayQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID23742265
PMCPMC3680039
OpenAlexW2070610314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.