Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35303884›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Impacts of patient and family engagement in hospital planning and improvement: qualitative interviews with patient/family advisors and hospital staff.

Natalie N Anderson, Kelly Dong, G Ross Baker, Lesley Moody, Kerseri Scane, Robin Urquhart, Walter P Wodchis, Anna R Gagliardi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Frameworks for Action: A Scoping Review of Organisational Patient Engagement Models in Healthcare.The International journal of health planning and management · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Natalie N AndersonToronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth Street, 13EN-228, M5G2C4, Toronto, Canada.
Kelly DongFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
G Ross BakerInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Lesley MoodyPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Kerseri ScanePatient Partnerships, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Robin UrquhartDepartment of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Walter P WodchisPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Anna R GagliardiToronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth Street, 13EN-228, M5G2C4, Toronto, Canada. anna.gagliardi@uhnresearch.ca.
Princess Margaret Cancer Centre · CAToronto General Hospital · CAUniversity of Toronto · CADalhousie University · CAUniversity Health Network · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient engagement (PE) in hospital planning and improvement is widespread, yet we lack evidence of its impact. We aimed to identify benefits and harms that could be used to assess the impact of hospital PE.

methodsWe interviewed hospital-affiliated persons involved in PE activities using a qualitative descriptive approach and inductive content analysis to derive themes. We interpreted themes by mapping to an existing framework of healthcare performance measures and reported themes with exemplar quotes.

resultsParticipants included 38 patient/family advisors, PE managers and clinicians from 9 hospitals (2 < 100 beds, 4 100 + beds, 3 teaching). Benefits of PE activities included 9 impacts on the capacity of hospitals. PE activities involved patient/family advisors and clinicians/staff in developing and spreading new PE processes across hospital units or departments, and those involved became more adept and engaged. PE had beneficial effects on hospital structures/resources, clinician staff functions and processes, patient experience and patient outcomes. A total of 14 beneficial impacts of PE were identified across these domains. Few unintended or harmful impacts were identified: overextended patient/family advisors, patient/family advisor turnover and clinician frustration if PE slowed the pace of planning and improvement.

conclusionsThe 23 self reported impacts were captured in a Framework of Impacts of Patient/Family Engagement on Hospital Planning and Improvement, which can be used by decision-makers to assess and allocate resources to hospital PE, and as the basis for ongoing research on the impacts of hospital PE and how to measure it.

Indexed as

Hospital PlanningHospitalsHumansPatient ParticipationPersonnel, HospitalHospital improvementHospital planningHospitalsInterviewOrganizational capacityPatient-centred carePatient engagementResource allocation

Identifiers

PMID35303884
PMCPMC8932199
OpenAlexW4220865011

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.