Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30385443›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

How do healthcare professionals working in accountable care organisations understand patient activation and engagement? Qualitative interviews across two time points.

Manish K Mishra, Catherine H Saunders, Hector P Rodriguez, Stephen M Shortell, Elliott Fisher, Glyn Elwyn

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Flipped Exam Room.Journal of medical education and curricular development
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Manish K MishraThe Dartmouth Institute of Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.
Catherine H SaundersThe Dartmouth Institute of Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.
Hector P RodriguezBerkeley School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA.
Stephen M ShortellBerkeley School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA.
Elliott FisherThe Dartmouth Institute of Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.
Glyn ElwynThe Dartmouth Institute of Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.
Dartmouth College · USUniversity of California, Berkeley · USDartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice · US

Funding

PA-20-072: Accelerating the Use of Evidence-based Innovation in Healthcare SystemsU19HS024075 · AHRQ · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI MEARA, ELLEN R. · 2015 to 2021
$19.8M
AHRQ HHS U19 HS024075Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute IHS-1310-06821
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIf patient engagement is the new 'blockbuster drug' why are we not seeing spectacular effects? Studies have shown that activated patients have improved health outcomes, and patient engagement has become an integral component of value-based payment and delivery models, including accountable care organisations (ACO). Yet the extent to which clinicians and managers at ACOs understand and reliably execute patient engagement in clinical encounters remains unknown. We assessed the use and understanding of patient engagement approaches among frontline clinicians and managers at ACO-affiliated practices.

designQualitative study; 103 in-depth, semi-structured interviews.

participantsSixty clinicians and eight managers were interviewed at two established ACOs. APPROACH: We interviewed healthcare professionals about their awareness, attitudes, understanding and experiences of implementing three key approaches to patient engagement and activation: 1) goal-setting, 2) motivational interviewing and 3) shared decision making. Of the 60 clinicians, 33 were interviewed twice leading to 93 clinician interviews. Of the 8 managers, 2 were interviewed twice leading to 10 manager interviews. We used a thematic analysis approach to the data. KEY

resultsInterviewees recognised the term 'patient activation and engagement' and had favourable attitudes about the utility of the associated skills. However, in-depth probing revealed that although interviewees reported that they used these patient activation and engagement approaches, they have limited understanding of these approaches.

conclusionsWithout understanding the concept of patient activation and the associated approaches of shared decision making and motivational interviewing, effective implementation in routine care seems like a distant goal. Clinical teams in the ACO model would benefit from specificity defining key terms pertaining to the principles of patient activation and engagement. Measuring the degree of understanding with reward that are better-aligned for behaviour change will minimise the notion that these techniques are already being used and help fulfil the potential of patient-centred care.

Indexed as

Accountable Care OrganizationsPatient ParticipationHealth PersonnelHumansInterviews as TopicPhysicians, Primary CareQualitative Researchaccountable care organizationspatient activationpatient engagement

Identifiers

PMID30385443
PMCPMC6252703
OpenAlexW2899263171

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.