ArticleBMJ open quality2021
Exploring power shifts as an enabler for a strengthened patient role in quality improvements: a Swedish survey study.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation and Evaluation of Postpartum Midwifery Care at Home at a Federally Qualified Health Center in Washington, DC.Health equity · 2025Article
- Challenges and promising solutions to engaging patients in healthcare implementation in the United States: an environmental scan.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Article
- Illuminating the importance of adding patient knowledge to continual improvement in healthcare.Integrated healthcare journal · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study examined the relationship between professionals' perceptions of a strengthened role for the patient and of patient involvement in quality improvement (QI) and whether professionals' experiences in improvement science were a moderator on such a relationship.
designFrom a predominantly close-ended, 44-item questionnaire, 4 questions specifically concerning professionals' perception on patient involvement in QI were analysed.
settingThree Swedish regions.
participants155 healthcare professionals who had previously participated in courses in improvement science.
resultsThe covariate patient involvement was significantly related to a perceived strengthened patient role. There was also a significant interaction effect between degree of patient involvement and professionals' experience in the area of improvement science on a strengthened patient role. The result shows that there is a relationship between the perceived level of patient involvement in improvements and professionals' perceptions of a strengthened patient role. In this study, the covariate, perceived patient involvement, was significantly related to experiences of more equal relationships between patients and healthcare professionals. There was also a significant interaction effect between the degree of patient involvement and professionals' experience in the area of improvement science, for a more equal relationship between patients and healthcare professionals.
conclusionIncreased patient involvement in QI is a means of strengthening the patient role and supporting a more equal relation between patients and healthcare professionals. Furthermore, empirical evidence shows that the healthcare professionals' experiences in the area of improvement science support a strengthened patient role and a more equal power relationship, but for this to happen, the mindset of professionals is key. Future research is needed to capture and investigate the experiences from patients and relatives about being involved in QI in healthcare, and to study the effects on quality in care processes.
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.