Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27352378›Full record

ReviewAdvances in therapy2016

Promoting Patient and Family Partnerships in Ambulatory Care Improvement: A Narrative Review and Focus Group Findings.

Karin E Johnson, Tracy M Mroz, Marie Abraham, Marlaine Figueroa Gray, Mary Minniti, Wendy Nickel, Robert Reid, Jennifer Sweeney, Dominick L Frosch, Debra L Ness and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in therapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A Qualitative Study to Improve How We Partner With Patients and Families in Healthcare Improvement Collaboratives.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Organizational capacity for patient and family engagement in hospital planning and improvement: interviews with patient/family advisors, managers and clinicians.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2021
    Article
  16. Approaches to optimize patient and family engagement in hospital planning and improvement: Qualitative interviews.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Priority measures for publicly reporting primary care performance: Results of public engagement through deliberative dialogues in 3 Canadian provinces.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  20. Review
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

11 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Karin E JohnsonGroup Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA. karinjohnso@gmail.com.
Tracy M MrozUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Marie AbrahamInstitute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Marlaine Figueroa GrayGroup Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Mary MinnitiInstitute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Wendy NickelAmerican College of Physicians, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Robert ReidTrillium Health Partners, Mississauga, ON, Canada.
Jennifer SweeneyNational Partnership for Women and Families, Washington, DC, USA.
Dominick L FroschPAMF Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Debra L NessNational Partnership for Women and Families, Washington, DC, USA.
Clarissa HsuGroup Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USInstitute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care · USNational Partnership for Women & Families · USAmerican College of Physicians · USPalo Alto Institute · USTrillium Health Centre · CAUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAmbulatory practices that actively partner with patients and families in quality improvement (QI) report benefits such as better patient/family interactions with physicians and staff, and patient empowerment. However, creating effective patient/family partnerships for ambulatory care improvement is not yet routine. The objective of this paper is to provide practices with concrete evidence about meaningfully involving patients and families in QI activities.

methodsReview of literature published from 2000-2015 and a focus group conducted in 2014 with practice advisors.

resultsThirty articles discussed 26 studies or examples of patient/family partnerships in ambulatory care QI. Patient and family partnership mechanisms included QI committees and advisory councils. Facilitators included process transparency, mechanisms for acting on patient/family input, and compensation. Challenges for practices included uncertainty about how best to involve patients and families in QI. Several studies found that patient/family partnership was a catalyst for improvement and reported that partnerships resulted in process improvements. Focus group results were concordant.

conclusionThis paper describes emergent mechanisms and processes that ambulatory care practices use to partner with patients and families in QI including outcomes, facilitators, and challenges.

fundingGordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Indexed as

Professional-Family RelationsAdultAgedAmbulatory CareFamilyFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationPatientsQuality ImprovementAmbulatory careFamily engagementPartnershipPatient engagementPractice advisorsQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID27352378
PMCPMC4969329
OpenAlexW2467376457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.