Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39102682›Full record

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

Evaluating patient participation in value-based healthcare: Current state and lessons learned.

Henrike J Westerink, Mirjam M Garvelink, Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan, Ouisam Zouitni, Hans A J Bart, Philip J van der Wees, Paul B van der Nat, Santeon Patient Participation Study Group

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Evaluating patient participation in value-based healthcare: Current state and lessons learned.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    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

8 authors.

Henrike J WesterinkDepartment of Value Improvement, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2792-1286
Mirjam M GarvelinkDepartment of Value Improvement, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Cornelia F van Uden-KraanSanteon, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ouisam ZouitniClient Council, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht/Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Hans A J Bart
Philip J van der WeesScientific Center for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Paul B van der NatDepartment of Value Improvement, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Santeon Patient Participation Study Group

Funding

Janssen Pharmaceuticals
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionValue-based healthcare (VBHC) focusses on increasing value for patients. Hospitals aim to implement VBHC via value improvement (VI) teams for medical conditions. To determine the patient's perspective on value, collective patient participation is important in these teams. We therefore evaluated the current state of patient participation in VI teams and share lessons learned.

methodsThis mixed-methods study was conducted at seven collaborating hospitals in the Netherlands. A questionnaire (the public and patient engagement evaluation tool) was tailored to the study's context, completed by VI team members (n = 147 from 76 different VI teams) and analysed with descriptive statistics. In addition, 30 semistructured interviews were held with VI team members and analysed through thematic analysis. Data were collected between February 2022 and January 2023 and were triangulated by mapping the quantitative results to the interview themes.

resultsThirty-eight of the 76 included VI teams reported using a form of patient participation. Many respondents (71%) indicated a lack of a clear strategy and goal for patient participation. Multiple VI team members believed that specific knowledge and skills are required for patients to participate in a VI team, but this led to concerns regarding the representativeness of participating patients. Furthermore, while patients indicated that they experienced some level of hierarchy, they also stated that they did not feel restricted hereby. Lastly, patients were satisfied with their participation and felt like equal VI team members (100%), but they did mention a lack of feedback from the VI team on their input.

conclusionThe results imply the lack of full implementation of patient participation within VI teams. Guidelines should be developed that provide information on how to include a representative group of patients, which methods to use, how to evaluate the impact of patient participation, and how to give feedback to participating patients. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two patient advisors were part of the research team and attended the research team meetings. They were involved as research partners in all phases of the study, including drafting the protocol (e.g., drafting interview guides and selecting the measurement instrument), interpreting the results and writing this article.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleNetherlandsPatient Care TeamSurveys and QuestionnairesValue-Based Health Caremixed methodsPatient and Public Evaluation Tool (PPEET)patient involvementvalue‐based healthcare

Identifiers

PMID39102682
PMCPMC10797212

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.