Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38855873›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024

The Perspectives of Healthcare Professionals and Managers on Patient Involvement in Care Pathway Development: A Discourse Analysis.

Mildred Visser, Naomi 't Hart, Marleen de Mul, Anne Marie Weggelaar-Jansen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Mildred VisserErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7928-4952
Naomi 't HartErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0008-5744-3749
Marleen de MulErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3447-5920
Anne Marie Weggelaar-JansenErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7786-6326

Funding

ZonMw 05160062010008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe WHO advocates patient and public involvement as an ethical imperative, due to the value of the lived experience of patients. A deeper understanding of the shared meanings and underlying beliefs of healthcare professionals and managers for and against including patients in care pathway development.

objectiveTo explore the considerations of healthcare professionals and managers on the involvement of patients and public in care pathway development.

methodsIn a medical rehabilitation centre we conducted a single case study that was part of a 2-year action research programme on blended care pathway development. Following 14 semistructured interviews with healthcare professionals and managers, we analysed their discourses on the value of patient involvement as well as the potential threats and opportunities.

resultsWe identified four discourses. Patient as expert frames involvement as relevant, as adding new perspectives and as required to fully understand the patient's needs. Skills and representation is based on the construct that obtaining valuable insights from patients requires certain skills and competences. Self-protection focusses on personal, interprofessional objections to patient involvement. Professional knows best reveals expertise-related reasons for avoiding or postponing involvement.

conclusionThese discourses explain why patient and public involvement in care pathway development is sometimes postponed, limited in scope and level of participation, and/or avoided. The following strategies might minimise the paralysing effect of these discourses: strengthen the capabilities of all stakeholders involved; use a mix of complementary techniques to gain involvement in distinct phases of care pathway development; and create/facilitate a safe environment. Put together, these strategies would foster ongoing, reciprocal learning that could enhance patient involvement. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study belonged to an action research programme on blended care pathway development (developing an integrated, coordinated patient care plan that combines remote, digital telehealth applications, self-management tools and face-to-face care). Multidisciplinary teams took a quality collaborative approach to quality improvement (considering patients as stakeholders) to develop 11 blended care pathways. Although professionals and managers were instructed to invite patients onto their teams and to attend care pathway design workshops, few teams (3/11) actually did. Unravelling why this happened will help improve patient and public involvement in care pathway development.

Indexed as

Critical PathwaysHealth PersonnelPatient ParticipationAttitude of Health PersonnelHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative Researchcare pathwayco‐creationco‐designdiscourse analysispatient involvementqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID38855873
PMCPMC11163266

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.