ArticleBMJ open quality2023
Patient involvement in quality improvement: a survey comparing naturalistic and reflective approaches.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Experiences of co-producing person-centred and cohesive clinical pathways in the national system for knowledge-based management in Swedish healthcare: a qualitative study.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study investigates reflective and naturalistic approaches to patient involvement in quality improvement. The reflective approach, using, for example, interviews, provides insights into patient needs and demands to support an established improvement agenda. The naturalistic approach, for example, observations, is used to discover practical problems and opportunities that professionals are currently unaware of.
methodsWe assessed the use of naturalistic and reflective approaches in quality improvement to see whether they differed in their impact on patient needs, financial improvements and improved patient flows. Four possible combinations were used as a starting point: restrictive (low reflective-low naturalistic), in situ (low reflective-high naturalistic), retrospective (high reflective-low naturalistic) and blended (high reflective-high naturalistic). Data were collected through an online cross-sectional survey using a web-based survey tool. The original sample was based on a list of 472 participants enrolled in courses on improvement science in three Swedish regions. The response rate was 34%. Descriptives and ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) in SPSS V.23 were used for the statistical analysis.
resultsThe sample consisted of 16 projects characterised as restrictive, 61 as retrospective and 63 as blended. No projects were characterised as in situ. There was a significant effect of patient involvement approaches on patient flows and patient needs at the p<0.05 level (patient flows, (F(2, 128)=5.198, p=0.007) and patient needs (F(2, 127)=13.228, p=0.000)). No significant effect was found for financial results.
conclusionsMoving beyond restrictive patient involvement is important to meet new patient needs and improve patient flows. This can be done either by increasing the use of a reflective approach or by increasing the use of both reflective and naturalistic approaches. A blended approach with high levels of both is likely to produce better results in addressing new patient needs and improving patient flows.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.