Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36767782›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023

The Stakeholders' Involvement in Healthcare 4.0 Services Provision: The Perspective of Co-Creation.

Norbert Laurisz, Marek Ćwiklicki, Michał Żabiński, Rossella Canestrino, Pierpaolo Magliocca

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. From guesstimates to game changers: Introducing objective measurement of blood loss for timely postpartum hemorrhage detection in Nigeria, Zambia, and Kenya.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Ten simple rules for research with humans.PLoS computational biology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Norbert LauriszDepartment of Public Management, Cracow University of Economics, 31-510 Cracow, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-2079-1041
Marek ĆwiklickiDepartment of Public Management, Cracow University of Economics, 31-510 Cracow, Poland.
Michał ŻabińskiDepartment of Public Management, Cracow University of Economics, 31-510 Cracow, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-8786-3719
Rossella CanestrinoDepartment of Management and Quantitative Studies, Parthenope University of Naples, 80133 Naples, Italy.
Pierpaolo MaglioccaDepartment of Humanities, Faculty of the Humanities, Literature, Cultural Heritage, and Educational Sciences, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4954-1495

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Literature research on cocreation in healthcare indicates the theoretical sophistication of research on collaboration between healthcare professionals and patients. Our research continues in the new area of Health 4.0. Cocreation has become an essential concept in the value creation process; by involving consumers in the creation process, better results are achieved regarding product quality and alignment with customer expectations and needs. In addition, consumer involvement in the creation process improves its efficiency. Cocreation allows for more efficient diagnosis and treatment of patients, as well as better and more effective use of the skills and experience of the health workforce. Our main objective is to determine the scope and depth of the cocreation of health services based on modern technological solutions (Health 4.0). We selected four cases involving Health 4.0 solutions, verified the scale and scope of cocreation using them as examples, and used the cocreation matrix. We used literature, case studies, and interviews in our research. Our analysis shows that patients can emerge as cocreators in the value creation process in Health 4.0. This can happen when they are genuinely involved in the process and when they feel responsible for the results. The article contributes to the existing theory of service cocreation by pointing out the limited scope of patient involvement in the service management process. For cocreation in Health 4.0 to increase the effectiveness of medical services, it is necessary to implement the full scope of cocreation and meaningfully empower the patient and medical workers in the creation process. This article verifies the theoretical analysis presented in our team's previous article.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationHealth ServicesHumansPatient Participationcocreationcreation of healthcare products and servicesefficiency of health servicesHealth 4.0health system managementinvolvement of patients and health workforce

Identifiers

PMID36767782
PMCPMC9914953

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.