ArticleBMC health services research2020
Patient involvement in quality improvement - a 'tug of war' or a dialogue in a learning process to improve healthcare?
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 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mobile-Health based physical activities co-production policies towards cardiovascular diseases prevention: findings from a mixed-method systematic review.BMC health services research · 2022Pooled it
- How Context Shapes Person-Centred Fundamental Care Through Nurse-Patient Relationships: Validation of the FoC Intelligence Modelling Tool and Predictive Pathway Analysis.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Stimulating co-production in healthcare quality improvement: raising the interest of health professionals to collaborate with patients.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Quality Improvement in General Dental Practice: Situational Analysis for the United Kingdom and Germany.JDR clinical and translational research · 2026Article
- Identifying facilitators, barriers and areas of opportunity in diabetic retinopathy screening: quality improvement through qualitative methods.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Developing an evaluation tool for the impact of consumer partnerships in healthcare governance: a coproduced mixed methods study.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Patient Innovation Partner Role: Perceived Benefits, Structures, Supports, and Recommendations for Lived Experience Engagement in Healthcare Innovation Teams.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- What do women want to see in a personalized breast cancer risk report? A qualitative study of Asian women of two countries.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Implementation and evaluation of a national quality improvement initiative in cancer surgery.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Experiences of co-producing person-centred and cohesive clinical pathways in the national system for knowledge-based management in Swedish healthcare: a qualitative study.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Evaluating patient participation in value-based healthcare: Current state and lessons learned.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Challenges and promising solutions to engaging patients in healthcare implementation in the United States: an environmental scan.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Patient Engagement and Patient Experience Data in Regulatory Review and Health Technology Assessment: A Global Landscape Review.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2024Review
- Leveraging patient experience data to guide medicines development, regulation, access decisions and clinical care in the EU.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Improving the hospital or immunizing its organization? Patient and public involvement at the service of quality.Frontiers in sociology · 2024Article
- Barriers and Facilitators of Patient Engagement Activities to Improve Patient Safety in Healthcare Organizations: A Delphi-Based Expert Survey.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Article
- Article
- Effective Co-Creation Tool Development for Shared Understanding and Active Communication for Patients with Head and Neck Cancer.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Primary healthcare professionals' experience with patient participation in healthcare service development: A qualitative study.PEC innovation · 2022Article
- Reframing Patient Experience Approaches and Methods to Achieve Patient-Centeredness in Healthcare: Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCo-production and co-design approaches to quality improvement (QI) efforts are gaining momentum in healthcare. Yet, these approaches can be challenging, not least when it comes to patient involvement. The aim of this study was to examine what might influence QI efforts in which patients are involved, as experienced by the patients and the healthcare professionals involved.
methodsThis study involved a qualitative design inspired by the constructivist grounded theory. In one mid-sized Swedish hospital's patient process organisation, data was collected from six QI teams that involved patients in their QI efforts, addressing care paths for patients with transient, chronic and/or multiple parallel diagnoses. Field notes were collected from participant observations during 53 QI team meetings in three of the six patient processes. Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 patients and 12 healthcare professionals in all the six QI teams.
resultsPatients were involved in QI efforts in different ways. In three of the QI teams, patient representatives attended team meetings regularly. One team consulted patient representatives on a single occasion, one team collected patient preferences structurally from individual interviews with patients, and one team combined interviews and a workshop with patients. The patients' and healthcare professionals' expressions of what might influence the QI efforts involving patients were similar in several ways. QI team members emphasized the importance of organisational structure and culture. Furthermore, they expressed a desire for ongoing interaction between patients and healthcare professionals in healthcare QI.
conclusionsQI team members recognised continuous dialogue and collective thinking by the sharing of experiences and preferences between patients and healthcare professionals as essential for achieving better matches between healthcare resources and patient needs in their QI efforts. Significant structural and cultural aspects of performing QI in complex hospital organisations were considered to be obstructions to progress. Therefore, to sustain learning and behaviour change through QI efforts at the team level, a deeper understanding of how structural and cultural aspects of QI promote or prevent success appears essential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.