ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Developing an evaluation tool for the impact of consumer partnerships in healthcare governance: a coproduced mixed methods study.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConsumer partnerships are a recent innovation in healthcare governance to diversify decision-making perspectives. These partnerships bring complexity necessitating comprehensive evaluation. This study proposes that evaluation tools should include the impact of healthcare governance partnerships. This study aimed to coproduce an impact evaluation tool for healthcare governance committee partnerships.
methodsThis study used a coproduced mixed methods cross-sectional design conducted in two phases. The first study phase included an online focus group and online survey to identify stakeholder expectations and needs for an impact evaluation design. The second study phase used an adapted Jandhyala Method to determine participant awareness of governance committee partnership impacts and consensus agreement to establish an impact evaluation survey. The development of governance committee partnership impact items was guided by a capability development framework for successful staff and consumer partnerships for quality improvement and the Engage with Impact Toolkit.
resultsIn phase one, staff (n=4) and consumer partners (n=3) provided recommendations to improve the development and acceptance of a governance committee partnership impact evaluation. Phase two was completed by 34 participants (>90% completion). An initial online survey generated 338 statements detailing broad governance committee partnership impacts. No statistically significant difference in the count of impacts by Engage with Impact Toolkit domains was found between staff and consumer partners. A second online survey resulted in a consensus ranking of 24 impact statements for inclusion. The highest consensus impact domains are knowledge, confidence and trust, equity and inclusivity and patient outcomes and experience.
conclusionThis study pragmatically used the insights of expert staff and consumer partners to develop a prioritised list of survey items to evaluate the impact of healthcare governance committee partnering effectiveness. The resulting healthcare governance committee partnership impact evaluation item list has the potential to be used in other healthcare organisations.
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.