ArticlePEC innovation2022
Primary healthcare professionals' experience with patient participation in healthcare service development: A qualitative study.
Article in PEC innovation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Perspectives of Healthcare Professionals and Managers on Patient Involvement in Care Pathway Development: A Discourse Analysis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Enabling primary healthcare service development with patient participation: a qualitative study of the internal facilitator role in Norway.Primary health care research & development · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: How healthcare professionals experience patient participation in health service development impacts its use. This participatory study explores primary healthcare professionals' perceptions of developing health services with patient representatives. Methods: Four focus group interviews with primary healthcare professionals ( Results: The healthcare professionals perceived having a complementary interprofessional relationship with the patient representatives and regarded them as colleagues. However, the professionals navigated between a position of authority and collaboration, reconciling the need for participation with its challenges, e.g., to identify the representatives' collective representation among their personal experience, to ensure a more evidence-informed result that they and their colleagues would endorse. Conclusions: Regarding patient representatives as colleagues can blur the line between professionals and representatives' positions and functions and further complicate health service development. Our results indicate a need for skilled facilitators to lead the process. Innovation: This study identifies issues that professionals are uncertain about when collaborating with representatives to develop primary healthcare services; difficulties that professionals must overcome to collaborate constructively with representatives. Our findings can inform healthcare professionals' education about patient participation on all levels. We have suggested topics to address.
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.