Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36348406›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2022

Co-designing person-centred quality indicator implementation for primary care in Alberta: a consensus study.

Kimberly Manalili, Catherine M Scott, Brenda Hemmelgarn, Maeve O'Beirne, Allan L Bailey, Michel K Haener, Cyrene Banerjee, Sue P Peters, Mirella Chiodo, Fariba Aghajafari and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Mapping Caregiver Needs' Assessment Tools for Family and Friend Caregivers: A Rapid Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Consensus quality indicators for monitoring multiple sclerosis.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

11 authors.

Kimberly ManaliliDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, 3D10, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada. kmanalil@ucalgary.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0826-7298
Catherine M ScottDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, 3D10, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Brenda HemmelgarnFaculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, 2J2.00 Walter C Mackenzie Health Sciences Centre 8440 112 St. NW, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2R7, Canada.
Maeve O'BeirneDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, 3D10, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Allan L BaileyDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, 5-16 University Terrace, 8303 112 St., Edmonton, AB, T6G 1K4, Canada.
Michel K HaenerGrande Prairie Primary Care Network, 11745 105 St #104, Grande Prairie, AB, T8V 8L1, Canada.
Cyrene BanerjeePatient and Community Engagement Research Program (PaCER), University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Sue P PetersHealth Quality Council of Alberta, 210, 811 14 St NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 2A4, Canada.
Mirella ChiodoDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, 5-16 University Terrace, 8303 112 St., Edmonton, AB, T6G 1K4, Canada.
Fariba AghajafariDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, 3D10, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Maria J SantanaDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, 3D10, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada.

Funding

Canadian Institutes for Health Research 201709PJT
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe aimed to contribute to developing practical guidance for implementing person-centred quality indicators (PC-QIs) for primary care in Alberta, Canada. As a first step in this process, we conducted stakeholder-guided prioritization of PC-QIs and implementation strategies. Stakeholder engagement is necessary to ensure PC-QI implementation is adapted to the context and local needs.

methodsWe used an adapted nominal group technique (NGT) consensus process. Panelists were presented with 26 PC-QIs, and implementation strategies. Both PC-QIs and strategies were identified from our extensive previous engagement of patients, caregivers, healthcare providers, and quality improvement leaders. The NGT objectives were to: 1. Prioritize PC-QIs and implementation strategies; and 2. Facilitate the participation of diverse primary care stakeholders in Alberta, including patients, healthcare providers, and quality improvement staff. Panelists participated in three rounds of activities. In the first, panelists individually ranked and commented on the PC-QIs and strategies. The summarized results were discussed in the second-round face-to-face group meeting. For the last round, panelists provided their final individual rankings, informed by the group discussion. Finally, we conducted an evaluation of the consensus process from the panelists' perspectives.

resultsEleven primary care providers, patient partners, and quality improvement staff from across Alberta participated. The panelists prioritized the following PC-QIs: 'Patient and caregiver involvement in decisions about their care and treatment'; 'Trusting relationship with healthcare provider'; 'Health information technology to support person-centred care'; 'Co-designing care in partnership with communities'; and 'Overall experience'. Implementation strategies prioritized included: 'Develop partnerships'; 'Obtain quality improvement resources'; 'Needs assessment (stakeholders are engaged about their needs/priorities for person-centred measurement)'; 'Align measurement efforts'; and 'Engage champions'. Our evaluation suggests that panelists felt that the process was valuable for planning the implementation and obtaining feedback, that their input was valued, and that most would continue to collaborate with other stakeholders to implement the PC-QIs.

conclusionsOur study demonstrates the value of co-design and participatory approaches for engaging stakeholders in adapting PC-QI implementation for the primary care context in Alberta, Canada. Collaboration with stakeholders can promote buy-in for ongoing engagement and ensure implementation will lead to meaningful improvements that matter to patients and providers.

Indexed as

Context consensusImplementationParticipatory researchPerson-centred carePrimary careQuality indicatorsStrategies

Identifiers

PMID36348406
PMCPMC9641306

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.