Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37369560›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2023

Patient engagement in the development and delivery of healthcare services: a systematic scoping review.

Joachim Støren Sagen, Geir Smedslund, Ann Elisabeth Simonsen, Andreas Habberstad, Ingvild Kjeken, Hanne Dagfinrud, Rikke Helene Moe

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Frameworks for Action: A Scoping Review of Organisational Patient Engagement Models in Healthcare.The International journal of health planning and management · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The Symphony of Consumer Partnering and Clinical Governance: An Organizational Review Using the RE-AIM Framework.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  16. Global kidney health priorities-perspectives from the ISN-GKHA.Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Rationalizing the Influence of Co-Design on Distress, Clinical Decision-Making and Disease Self-Management of Cancer Patients-as-Partners: A Quasi-Experimental Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

7 authors.

Joachim Støren SagenNKRR, Center for treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway joachim.sagen@diakonsyk.no.ORCID 0000-0001-5252-1770
Geir SmedslundNKRR, Center for treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Ann Elisabeth SimonsenRøysumtunet Rehabilitation Centre, Oslo, Norway.
Andreas HabberstadThe Norwegian Federation of Organisations of Disabled People, Oslo, Norway.
Ingvild KjekenNKRR, Center for treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Hanne DagfinrudNKRR, Center for treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Rikke Helene MoeNKRR, Center for treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-7601-5346

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient engagement (PE) is required to improve future healthcare services. PE in the development and delivery of healthcare services is likely to be complex but is scarcely described.

objectivesThe objective of this scoping review was to summarise primary studies on mesolevel PE regarding structure, process and outcomes. More specifically, the aim was to explore barriers and facilitators to successful PE, how persons are engaged in the process and summarise reported consequences.

methodA systematic scoping review was conducted, searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane and PsycINFO databases. Primary studies, published between 7 July 2005 and 4 October 2022, were considered for inclusion. Two reviewers extracted data about PE (eg, attributes of PE settings, facilitators and barriers, and outcomes to PE) and the first author coded the extracted data into structural, processual and outcome themes.

resultsOf 8588 identified records, 37 studies were eligible. Most of the included studies were conducted in Europe (n=19; 51%) and North America (n=13; 35%). Structures that ensure sufficient stakeholder representativeness and PE knowledge through education may facilitate the PE process further, regardless of the environmental setting. Interpersonal relationships with uneven power dynamics were reported as noteworthy processual barriers to meaningful PE, while clearly described roles and tasks were reported as important facilitators. In contrast to hard outcomes with operationalised PE effects, the most noteworthy outcomes of PE were reported as soft processual consequences such as patient representatives improving their self-esteem and feeling valued.

conclusionsUnfortunately, there is a dearth of studies exploring hard and operationalised PE outcomes on healthcare services and patients receiving healthcare. The PE process may be facilitated by dedicated finances to PE education and by ensuring sufficient stakeholder representativeness.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CarePatient ParticipationHumansHealthcare quality improvementHealth EquityPatient ParticipationShared decision making

Identifiers

PMID37369560
PMCPMC10577732

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.