Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30045735›Full record

SynthesisImplementation science : IS2018

Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review.

Yvonne Bombard, G Ross Baker, Elaina Orlando, Carol Fancott, Pooja Bhatia, Selina Casalino, Kanecy Onate, Jean-Louis Denis, Marie-Pascale Pomey

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Implementation science : IS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07528846 (Justice Community Overdose Innovation Network II TCU Hub), which is not on this map. Cited by 637 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
637citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT07528846 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Justice Community Overdose Innovation Network II TCU Hub: TCU Building Resilient Initiatives for Deflection Through Greater Engagement Project (TCU BRIDGE to Deflection Project)

TypeinterventionalSponsorTexas Christian UniversityRan2026 to 2029Enrolled1,620ConditionsSubstance Use Disorder (SUD), Drug Overdose, Criminal BehaviorArmsCore-interagency community engagement approach, Enhanced-Core plus community engagement specialist
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

637 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Evaluating Process and Outcomes of Public Involvement in Applied Health and Social Care Research: A Rapid Systematic Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Experiences of pain communication in endometriosis: A meta-synthesis.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025
    Pooled it
  13. Cluster randomized trial of reablement strategies targeting sarcopenia (ReStart-S) in long-term care settings.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2026
    Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

577 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Yvonne BombardInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street 4th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M6, Canada. yvonne.bombard@utoronto.ca.
G Ross BakerInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street 4th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M6, Canada.
Elaina OrlandoInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street 4th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M6, Canada.
Carol FancottInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street 4th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M6, Canada.
Pooja BhatiaInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street 4th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M6, Canada.
Selina CasalinoLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond St, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1W8, Canada.
Kanecy OnateInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street 4th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M6, Canada.
Jean-Louis DenisProfessor of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Université de Montréal-CRCHUM & Canada Research Chair in Health System Design and Adaptation, 900, Saint Denis Street, Pavillion R, Montreal, Quebec, H2X 0A9, Canada.
Marie-Pascale PomeyDépartment de Gestion, d'Évaluation et de Politique de Santé, École de santé Publique, Université de Montréal, Centre de recherche du CHUM, Carrefour de l'innovation et de l'évaluation en santé, 850 rue Saint-Denis, Montréal, Quebec, H2X 0A9, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo identify the strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients in the design, delivery, and evaluation of health services.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, PsychINFO, Social Science Abstracts, EBSCO, and ISI Web of Science from 1990 to 2016 for empirical studies addressing the active participation of patients, caregivers, or families in the design, delivery and evaluation of health services to improve quality of care. Thematic analysis was used to identify (1) strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients, (2) outcomes of patient engagement, and (3) patients' experiences of being engaged.

resultsForty-eight studies were included. Strategies and contextual factors that enable patient engagement were thematically grouped and related to techniques to enhance design, recruitment, involvement and leadership action, and those aimed to creating a receptive context. Reported outcomes ranged from educational or tool development and informed policy or planning documents (discrete products) to enhanced care processes or service delivery and governance (care process or structural outcomes). The level of engagement appears to influence the outcomes of service redesign-discrete products largely derived from low-level engagement (consultative unidirectional feedback)-whereas care process or structural outcomes mainly derived from high-level engagement (co-design or partnership strategies). A minority of studies formally evaluated patients' experiences of the engagement process (n = 12; 25%). While most experiences were positive-increased self-esteem, feeling empowered, or independent-some patients sought greater involvement and felt that their involvement was important but tokenistic, especially when their requests were denied or decisions had already been made.

conclusionsPatient engagement can inform patient and provider education and policies, as well as enhance service delivery and governance. Additional evidence is needed to understand patients' experiences of the engagement process and whether these outcomes translate into improved quality of care. REGISTRATION: N/A (data extraction completed prior to registration on PROSPERO).

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationQuality ImprovementQuality of Health CareDecision MakingHumansHealth deliveryHealth servicesPatient engagementPatient involvementQuality improvementQuality of careSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30045735
PMCPMC6060529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.