Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32727451›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Assessing and reporting patient participation by means of patient preferences and experiences.

Ann Catrine Eldh, Marie Holmefur, Kristina Luhr, Marika Wenemark

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. To become part of the team-patient experiences of participating in decision-making for a new treatment (proton beam therapy).Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Preference-based patient participation for most, if not all: A cross-sectional study of patient participation amongst persons with end-stage kidney disease.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  17. Conceptualizing patient participation in psychiatry: A survey describing the voice of patients in outpatient care.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    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

4 authors.

Ann Catrine EldhDepartment of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, SE-581 83, Linköping, Sweden. ann.catrine.eldh@liu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7737-169X
Marie HolmefurSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, S701 82, Örebro, Sweden.
Kristina LuhrSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, S701 82, Örebro, Sweden.
Marika WenemarkDepartment of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, SE-581 83, Linköping, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough patient participation is strongly associated with high quality of healthcare, valid means to measure and report a comprehensive notion of patient participation are scarce. The Patient Preferences for Patient Participation (4Ps) is a new healthcare practice and research tool, comprising patients' preferences as well as experiences. The 4Ps employs 12 items for the patient to conceptualise patient participation. The aim of this paper is to describe how the two perspectives of patient participation, namely preferences and experiences, can be combined to visualise and report preference-based patient participation.

methodsWith four response alternatives in each section, the 4Ps offers sixteen possible combinations of degree of match per item. Theoretical and clinical principles fostered a tentative order of six ranks and three levels of preference-based patient participation. To test the standard, statistical analyses for ordinal data were performed, using data from a randomised controlled trial evaluating an intervention aiming to improve patient participation. Further, structures for visualising the preference-based patient participation of individuals and groups were suggested.

resultsData from the 4Ps demonstrated the individuals' preference-based patient participation, indicating either a match or a mismatch for each item. Mismatches represented either the experience of participation surpassing the patient's preferences, or the patient's preferences for patient participation not being established. At group level, the suggested approach for visualising and reporting the 4Ps demonstrated that the intervention group had a significantly higher proportion of sufficient preference-based patient participation for certain items than the control group. These results had not been identified earlier, when using the preferences and experiences of patient participation as separate measures.

conclusionsWays to easily acquaint stakeholders with patients' preferences for patient participation are needed, in order for healthcare staff to better use resources to match the basic requirements of individuals and groups. While the 4Ps can guide professionals to patient participation as framed in legislations, concept analyses and by patients, a visualisation of the results is needed to capture preference-based patient participation. The proposed route to representing degree of match in preferences and experiences may also be relevant to other dimensions of quality of healthcare.

Indexed as

Patient PreferenceResearch DesignDecision MakingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicInvolvementPatient participationPatient preferencesPerson-centred careQuestionnaireShared decision-makingSurvey

Identifiers

PMID32727451
PMCPMC7391651

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.