Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36675737›Full record

ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022

Ethical Foundations of the Accompanying Patient's Role for an Enhanced Patient Experience: A Scoping Review.

Mylène Shankland, Amaryllis Ferrand, Isabelle Ganache, Marie-Andrée Côté, Marie-Pascale Pomey

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Patients as Co-Researchers in Oncology: A Qualitative Exploration of Participatory Governance.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Mylène ShanklandBioethics Program, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC H3N 1X9, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2447-8426
Amaryllis FerrandPragmatic Health Ethics Research Unit, Montreal Clinical Research Institute (IRCM), Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC H2W 1R7, Canada.
Isabelle GanacheBioethics Program, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC H3N 1X9, Canada.
Marie-Andrée CôtéIndependent Researcher, Montréal, QC H2X 0A9, Canada.
Marie-Pascale PomeyDepartment of Health Management, Evaluation and Policy, School of Public Health, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC H3N 1X9, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5180-8139

Funding

CIHR HRC 154130
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, recognizing patients' experiential knowledge to improve the quality of care has resulted in the participation of patient advisors at various levels of healthcare systems. Some who are working at the clinical level are called accompanying patients (AP). A PRISMA-ScR exploratory scoping review of the literature was conducted on articles published from 2005 to 2021. Articles not in English or French and grey literature were excluded. The databases searched included Medline, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The data were organized according to the similarities in the ethical foundations of the included papers. Out of 2095 identified papers, 8 met inclusion criteria. Terms used to describe APs included peer support, resource parent, and peer health mediator. The clinical settings included psychiatry/mental health and neonatology. APs, patients, healthcare professionals, managers and policy makers were included in the studies. Three personal ethical foundations describing the foundations of the AP role were found: resilience, listening skills and altruism. The ethical foundations of this role also addressed interpersonal and interprofessional relationships with other actors in the healthcare system. The literature on the ethical foundations of APs is sparse, with heterogeneous methodologies. Further studies mobilizing well-defined methodologies would further validate the current results and deepen our understanding of the ethical foundations of the AP role.

Indexed as

accompanying patientcare partnershipethical foundationsethicspatient advisorpatient partnerpeer support

Identifiers

PMID36675737
PMCPMC9863322

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.