ArticleBMJ open2025
Development of a practical guide for patient participation in value-based healthcare: an action research study.
Article in BMJ open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesValue-based healthcare (VBHC) strives to improve the healthcare system by focusing on value of care, that is, patient relevant outcomes relative to the costs for achieving these outcomes. Within VBHC, patient participation is crucial to identify patient relevant outcomes and value improvement potential. However, patient participation in VBHC initiatives remains limited. Therefore, we aimed to improve patient participation within VBHC teams with the ultimate aim to develop a practical guide for patient participation in VBHC.
designAn action research study.
settingThis study was conducted in seven collaborating Dutch hospitals from March 2023 to November 2024.
participantsSeven VBHC teams were selected to participate in the cyclical action research steps, that is, orientation, planning, implementation, and evaluation, in which patient participation was implemented or improved. These included the following patient groups: prostate cancer, vulnerable elderly, breast cancer, diabetes, maternity care, colorectal cancer and chronic kidney disease. OUTCOMES: Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected. Qualitative data included observations and minutes of meetings with the intervention teams. Quantitative data included responses to the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) by multiple members of the intervention (n=7) and control teams (n=94) at three time points (T1=6 months, T2=12 months, T3=end of study). Qualitative data were thematically analysed and quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Finally, the data were triangulated to create an overview of lessons learnt in improving patient participation.
resultsPatient participation goals varied across teams, leading to diverse actions, such as establishing a diabetes patient panel and distributing questionnaires to patients with colorectal cancer. PPEET results show that 71% of intervention team members reported that patient participation had an impact on the team's outcomes compared with 44% in control teams (T3). Furthermore, 80% of the intervention team members initially wanted training in patient participation (T1), which dropped to 29% at T3. Overall, 22 lessons in improving patient participation in multidisciplinary project teams were identified and compiled into a practical guide.
conclusionsThe action research process improved the process and impact of patient participation in the intervention teams. Furthermore, the results indicate that the action research process enhanced the team members' knowledge and skills on patient participation. The practical guide developed in this study can be used to support implementation of patient participation in VBHC.
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.