↓ Skip to main content

Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 1,821)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
649 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1309 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review
Published in
Implementation Science, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-018-0784-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yvonne Bombard, G. Ross Baker, Elaina Orlando, Carol Fancott, Pooja Bhatia, Selina Casalino, Kanecy Onate, Jean-Louis Denis, Marie-Pascale Pomey

Abstract

To identify the strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients in the design, delivery, and evaluation of health services. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, PsychINFO, Social Science Abstracts, EBSCO, and ISI Web of Science from 1990 to 2016 for empirical studies addressing the active participation of patients, caregivers, or families in the design, delivery and evaluation of health services to improve quality of care. Thematic analysis was used to identify (1) strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients, (2) outcomes of patient engagement, and (3) patients' experiences of being engaged. Forty-eight studies were included. Strategies and contextual factors that enable patient engagement were thematically grouped and related to techniques to enhance design, recruitment, involvement and leadership action, and those aimed to creating a receptive context. Reported outcomes ranged from educational or tool development and informed policy or planning documents (discrete products) to enhanced care processes or service delivery and governance (care process or structural outcomes). The level of engagement appears to influence the outcomes of service redesign-discrete products largely derived from low-level engagement (consultative unidirectional feedback)-whereas care process or structural outcomes mainly derived from high-level engagement (co-design or partnership strategies). A minority of studies formally evaluated patients' experiences of the engagement process (n = 12; 25%). While most experiences were positive-increased self-esteem, feeling empowered, or independent-some patients sought greater involvement and felt that their involvement was important but tokenistic, especially when their requests were denied or decisions had already been made. Patient engagement can inform patient and provider education and policies, as well as enhance service delivery and governance. Additional evidence is needed to understand patients' experiences of the engagement process and whether these outcomes translate into improved quality of care. N/A (data extraction completed prior to registration on PROSPERO).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 361 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,309 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1309 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 166 13%
Student > Bachelor 135 10%
Researcher 113 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 93 7%
Other 63 5%
Other 218 17%
Unknown 521 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 204 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 187 14%
Social Sciences 85 6%
Psychology 49 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 41 3%
Other 185 14%
Unknown 558 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 302. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 September 2023.
All research outputs
#116,592
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#2
of 1,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,339
of 342,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#1
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,821 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.