Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42152073›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2026

Engaging patients throughout the continuum of implementation science and practice: adapted evidence mapping review and practical guide for clinicians and researchers.

Lauren Steeves, Srinivas Sampalli, Robin Urquhart

Erratum issuedAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lauren SteevesFaculty of Computer Science, Interdisciplinary PhD Program, Dalhousie University, Room 319, 6050 University Avenue, PO BOX 15000, Halifax, NS, B3H 4R2, Canada. lr930259@dal.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-4961-4697
Srinivas SampalliFaculty of Computer Science, Dalhousie University, Room 319, 6050 University Avenue, PO BOX 15000, Halifax, NS, B3H 4R2, Canada.
Robin UrquhartFaculty of Medicine, Centre for Clinical Research, Dalhousie University, Room 413, 5790 University Ave, Halifax, NS, B3H 1V7, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe role of patients in healthcare is dramatically changing. Patients have increased autonomy and responsibility for managing care interventions that influence their morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Engagement of patients to meaningfully participate in health research, care, and decision-making is limited, negatively impacting diverse outcomes. Implementation science (IS) and patient engagement (PE) strive to improve patient care and outcomes. Integration of IS and PE may aid researchers/healthcare teams in engaging patients and improving outcomes. There is a paucity of literature and guidance to support integration of IS and PE. The aims of this research are to (1) present an overview of select IS theories/frameworks, strategies, outcomes, and reporting guidelines that may facilitate PE and (2) present a framework outlining opportunities within the IS research process to integrate PE approaches. MAIN TEXT: There are common theoretical constructs, identified across IS theories/frameworks, that may facilitate PE. Examples of such constructs include "engagement" and "patient/target audience characteristics and needs". In addition, 6 of the top 10 most cited IS theories/frameworks include more than one (> 3) of these constructs. Evidence-informed implementation strategies are indexed and categorized into thematic clusters in the published results of the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Examples of implementation strategies that may facilitate PE include "conduct educational meetings" and "prepare patients/consumers to be active participants". Proctor et al. propose a working taxonomy of implementation outcomes for IS research. Implementation outcomes that may facilitate measurement of PE-relevant outcomes include satisfaction, function, and symptomatology. There are no reporting guidelines that include both IS and PE research reporting recommendations. IS reporting guidelines such as Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) may be extended by combining them with existing PE-reporting guidelines such as the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) 2 reporting checklist.

conclusionsThere are IS theories/frameworks, strategies, and outcomes that may facilitate PE. PE-informed selection of IS methodologies is critical to improving patient outcomes by optimizing the patient's role in research, care, and health system decision-making. This article proposes a framework outlining important stages of IS research at which PE strategies, outcomes, and reporting guidelines may be suitable to integrate.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth Services ResearchImplementation SciencePatient ParticipationDecision MakingHealth PersonnelHumansPatient CareResearch PersonnelHealthcareImplementation sciencePatient engagementResearch framework

Identifiers

PMID42152073
PMCPMC13185304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.