Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36942646›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2023

Development of the Engage with Impact Toolkit: A comprehensive resource to support the evaluation of patient, family and caregiver engagement in health systems.

Julia Abelson, Laura Tripp, Maggie MacNeil, Amy Lang, Carol Fancott, Rebecca Ganann, Marisa Granieri, Cathie Hofstetter, Bernice King, Betty-Lou Kristy and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
12.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Public Engagement in Health Policy-Making for Older Adults: A Systematic Search and Scoping Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. PPIE in a technical research study: Using public involvement to refine the concept and understanding and move towards a multidimensional concept of disability.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Development of the Engage with Impact Toolkit: A comprehensive resource to support the evaluation of patient, family and caregiver engagement in health systems.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  17. 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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Julia AbelsonPublic and Patient Engagement Collaborative, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2907-2783
Laura TrippPublic and Patient Engagement Collaborative, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6108-9190
Maggie MacNeilSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Amy LangPatient Oriented Research, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Carol FancottPatient Engagement & Partnerships, Healthcare Excellence Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Rebecca GanannSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Marisa GranieriIndependent Patient Partner, Ontario, Canada.
Cathie HofstetterIndependent Patient Partner, Ontario, Canada.
Bernice KingIndependent Patient Partner, Ontario, Canada.
Betty-Lou KristyMinister's Patient and Family Advisory Council, Ministry of Health, Government of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Alies MaybeeIndependent Patient Partner, Ontario, Canada.
Maureen SmithIndependent Patient Partner, Ontario, Canada.
Jeonghwa YouPublic and Patient Engagement Collaborative, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Evaluating Patient Engagement Working Group
Canadian Patient Safety Institute · CAImpact · CAMcMaster University · CACanadian Institutes of Health Research · CACARE Canada · CAMinistry of Health · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRecent shifts in the patient, family and caregiver engagement field have focused greater attention on measurement and evaluation, including the impacts of engagement efforts. Current evaluation tools offer limited support to organizations seeking to reorient their efforts in this way. We addressed this gap through the development of an impact measurement framework and accompanying evaluation toolkit-the Engage with Impact Toolkit.

methodsThe measurement framework and toolkit were co-designed with the Evaluating Patient Engagement Working Group, a multidisciplinary group of patient, family and caregiver partners, engagement specialists, researchers and government personnel. Project activities occurred over four phases: (1) project scoping and literature review; (2) modified concept mapping; (3) working group deliberations and (4) toolkit web design.

resultsThe project scope was to develop a measurement framework and an evaluation toolkit for patient engagement in health systems that were practical, accessible, menu-driven and aligned with current system priorities. Concept mapping yielded 237 impact statements that were sorted, discussed and combined into 81 unique items. A shorter list of 50 items (rated 8.0 or higher out of 10) was further consolidated to generate a final list of 35 items mapped across 8 conceptual domains of impact: (1) knowledge and skills; (2) confidence and trust; (3) equity and inclusivity; (4) priorities and decisions; (5) effectiveness and efficiency; (6) patient-centredness; (7) culture change and (8) patient outcomes and experience. Working Group members rated the final list for importance (1-5) and identified a core set of 33 items (one for each of the 8 domains and 25 supplementary items). Two domains (priorities and decisions; and culture change) yielded the highest overall importance ratings (4.8). A web-based toolkit (www.evaluateengagement.ca) hosts the measurement framework and related evaluation supports.

conclusionThe Engage with Impact Toolkit builds on existing engagement evaluation tools but brings a more explicit focus to supporting organizations to assess the impacts of their engagement work. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Patient, family and caregiver partners led the early conceptualization of this work and were involved at all stages and in all aspects of the work. As end-users of the toolkit, their perspectives, knowledge and opinions were critical.

Indexed as

CaregiversPatientsFamilyHumansevaluation toolsfamily and caregiver engagementimpact evaluationpatientpublic and patient engagement

Identifiers

PMID36942646
PMCPMC10154848
OpenAlexW4328048534

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.