ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Identifying potential outcomes of patient engagement in primary care quality improvement: a modified Delphi study.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. 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.
- Identifying potential outcomes of patient engagement in primary care quality improvement: a modified Delphi study.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
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
Abstract
rationaleA barrier to dedicating resources towards patient engagement in primary care quality improvement is the lack of clearly identified outcomes that might result from these initiatives. AIMS AND
objectivesWe sought to identify these potential outcomes at three healthcare levels as defined by the Institute of Medicine: 1) Micro/Direct Care; 2) Meso/Microsystem; and 3) Macro/Clinic/System using a Modified Delphi technique.
methodTwo focus groups of patients and primary care clinician leaders generated a first set of outcomes. These outcomes were then vetted and expanded through three web-based surveys sent to twelve national experts. Experts indicated the level of agreement with prior elicited outcomes and generated potential new outcomes.
resultsIncluded outcomes achieved at least 80% agreement. The final list of 46 consensus-derived outcomes was categorized across levels. 22 were at the Micro-level, 9 were at the Meso-level, and 15 were at the Macro-level.
conclusionOur findings suggest outcomes across all health system levels have the potential for progress when patients are engaged in primary care quality improvement initiatives. Future programs should consider validating and measuring these outcomes as part of their interventions.
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.