Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35111881›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-centered research and reviews2022

Bridging the Patient Engagement Gap in Research and Quality Improvement Utilizing the Henry Ford Flexible Engagement Model.

Heather A Olden, Sara Santarossa, Dana Murphy, Christine C Johnson, Karen E Kippen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-centered research and reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. "Healing Can Be a Very Jagged Line": Reflections on Life as a COVID-19 Long Hauler.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2023
    Article
  11. A Fond Farewell.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2022
    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.

Heather A OldenPatient-Engaged Research Center, Department of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI.
Sara SantarossaPatient-Engaged Research Center, Department of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI.
Dana MurphyPatient-Engaged Research Center, Department of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI.
Christine C JohnsonPatient-Engaged Research Center, Department of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI.
Karen E KippenPatient-Engaged Research Center, Department of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI.

Funding

Trans-America Consortium of the Health Care Systems Research Network for the All of Us Research ProgramOT2OD026550 · OD · HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM · PI AHMEDANI, BRIAN KENNETH, JOHNSON, CHRISTINE C · 2018 to 2022
$57.3M
AHRQ HHS R24 HS022417NIH HHS OT2 OD026550
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis paper was intended to share a flexible engagement model (FEM) for organizing a structure to obtain patient input regarding health care operations and research, provide greater detail on recruitment, retention, and dissemination strategies, and demonstrate successes and potential applications in other health care settings.

methodsUtilizing a pragmatic approach, the Patient-Engaged Research Center (PERC) at Henry Ford Health System developed the FEM, a 7-step process to introduce interested patients/caregivers to the patient advisor program and to follow up with placements. PERC developed a meeting evaluation to measure participant satisfaction. Retention and dissemination methods to keep participants consistently engaged included monthly email blasts, an annual patient advisor retreat, and inviting patient advisors to attend/present at local and national conferences.

resultsAs of January 2020, the program had 419 patient advisors. Almost 50% self-reported as Caucasian and 31% as African American; 73% were women, and most were 45-74 years of age. Recruitment methods proved effective, as 85% of advisors were initially engaged through print and digital marketing. Mean advisor orientation workshop evaluation scores regarding content, facilitators, and logistics were high, with all 4.5 or higher on a Likert scale of 1 (strongly negative) to 5 (strongly positive).

conclusionsGiven the FEM's flexible nature and adaptability, PERC has been successful in effectively leveraging the patient voice and experiences in research and health care delivery. Further research could investigate the model's generalizability, return on investment, and how to formally embed its methodology institutionally.

Indexed as

disseminationflexible engagement modelhealth services researchpatient advisorpatient engagementretention

Identifiers

PMID35111881
PMCPMC8772608

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.