Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33125177›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2021

Stakeholder engagement from problem analysis to implementation strategies for a patient-reported experience measure in disability care: A qualitative study on the process and experiences.

Marjolein van Rooijen, Stephanie Lenzen, Ruth Dalemans, Anna Beurskens, Albine Moser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Implementation of a patient-reported experience measure in a Dutch disability care organization: A process evaluation of cocreated tailored strategies.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors.

Marjolein van RooijenDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0322-1979
Stephanie LenzenResearch Centre for Autonomy and Participation of Persons with a Chronic Illness, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, the Netherlands.
Ruth DalemansResearch Centre for Autonomy and Participation of Persons with a Chronic Illness, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, the Netherlands.
Anna BeurskensDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Albine MoserDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn implementation science, vast gaps exist between theoretical and practical knowledge. These gaps prevail in the process of getting from problem analysis to selecting implementation strategies while engaging stakeholders including care users.

objectiveTo describe a process of how to get from problem analysis to strategy selection, how to engage stakeholders, and to provide insights into stakeholders' experiences.

designA qualitative descriptive design. SETTING AND

participantsThe setting was a care organization providing long-term care to people with acquired brain injuries who are communication vulnerable. Fourteen stakeholders (care users, professionals and researchers) participated. Data were collected by a document review, five interviews and one focus group. Inductive content analysis and deductive framework analysis were applied.

interventionStakeholder engagement.

main outcome measuresA three-step process model and stakeholders experiences. RESULTS AND

conclusionWe formulated a three-step process: (a) reaching consensus and prioritizing barriers; (b) categorizing the prioritized barriers and idealization; and (c) composing strategies. Two subthemes continuously played a role in how stakeholders were engaged during the process: communication supportive strategies and continuous contact. The experiences of stakeholder participation resulted in the following themes: stakeholders and their roles, use of co-creation methods and communication supportive strategies, building relationships, stimulus of stakeholders to engage, sharing power, empowerment of stakeholders, feeling a shared responsibility and learning from one another. We conclude that the inclusion of communication-vulnerable care users is possible if meetings are prepared, communication-friendly presentations and reports are used, and relationship building is prioritized.

Indexed as

Persons with DisabilitiesStakeholder ParticipationFocus GroupsHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQualitative Researchdisability careimplementation scienceparticipatory researchstakeholder participation

Identifiers

PMID33125177
PMCPMC7879541

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.