ArticleBMC health services research2024
Health service provider views on measuring patient involvement in healthcare: an interview study with researchers, clinicians, service managers, and policymakers.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. 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.
- Moving forward, leaving the patients behind? A multilevel assessment framework for evaluating patient-centred, integrated care quality.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Review
- Integrating Patient Involvement Interventions within Clinical Practice: A Mixed-Methods Study of Health Care Professional Reasoning.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are several strategies used to assess involvement in their healthcare across service providers. However, there is no consensus on the most appropriate measurement tool to use when evaluating patient involvement initiatives. This qualitative study aimed to explore the perspectives of stakeholders from micro, meso, and macro levels within the Danish healthcare system on measuring patient involvement in their healthcare.
methodsThis descriptive, explorative study employed semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions to elicit participants' views and experiences of patient involvement and measurement tools. A purposeful sample of participants was identified, to include decision makers, researchers, and health professionals (n = 20) with experiences of measuring patient involvement in healthcare at micro, meso, and macro levels across Danish organizations. Data underwent reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsThree main themes were identified: 1) Determining the purpose of patient involvement practices and measurement alignment; 2) Reflecting on the qualities, fit, and usefulness of measures; 3) Recognizing conflicting stakeholder paradigms. Despite the interest in and positive attitudes toward patient involvement innovations, views on the meaning and value of evaluating involvement varied; in part, this was attributable to challenges in selecting criteria, methods, and measures for evaluation.
conclusionThe findings indicate the need to integrate the perspectives of all key stakeholders in designing the evaluation of patient involvement initiatives. The application of a multiple stakeholder approach and co-production of a multidimensional evaluation may provide some common ground for selecting evaluation criteria and measurement tools in the healthcare setting.
trial registrationDanish Data Protection Agency (1-16-02-400-21) 15 October 2021.
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.