15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Impact of Patient Engagement on Healthcare Quality: A Scoping Review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Patient engagement (PE) is a well-known strategy introduced and implemented by pharmaceutical and medical device companies for patient compliance and adherence to treatment protocols during clinical trials and care processes. This can affect a wider range of outcomes such as the quality of treatment decisions and quality of care outcomes. Few studies have paid attention to it. The involvement of patient is one of the crucial stakeholders of health care in their treatment that makes controversial opinions about the potential outcomes of their engagement in various aspects of healthcare. This scoping review was conducted in 2022 to collect the results of PE. The search was performed in the MEDLINE and Web of Sciences databases. The selected documents were categorized and reported by the direct content analysis method. Out of 3974 published documents, 17 articles were selected. Findings are categorized into 4 groups: (1) Health outcome, (2) patient compliance, (3) self-efficiency, and (4) return on investment. PE can improve both treatment outcomes and consequently patient satisfaction and health, as well as the productivity of the service provider. However, increasing self-care and patient adherence are among the positive effects of this engagement on the patient, and return on investment is still a challenge for PE.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

          Content analysis is a widely used qualitative research technique. Rather than being a single method, current applications of content analysis show three distinct approaches: conventional, directed, or summative. All three approaches are used to interpret meaning from the content of text data and, hence, adhere to the naturalistic paradigm. The major differences among the approaches are coding schemes, origins of codes, and threats to trustworthiness. In conventional content analysis, coding categories are derived directly from the text data. With a directed approach, analysis starts with a theory or relevant research findings as guidance for initial codes. A summative content analysis involves counting and comparisons, usually of keywords or content, followed by the interpretation of the underlying context. The authors delineate analytic procedures specific to each approach and techniques addressing trustworthiness with hypothetical examples drawn from the area of end-of-life care.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

            Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review

              Background To identify the strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients in the design, delivery, and evaluation of health services. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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. Registration N/A (data extraction completed prior to registration on PROSPERO). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0784-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Patient Exp
                J Patient Exp
                JPX
                spjpx
                Journal of Patient Experience
                SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                2374-3735
                2374-3743
                16 September 2022
                2022
                : 9
                : 23743735221125439
                Affiliations
                [1 ]President and CEO at Key Patient Insights, Ringgold 20899, universityChapel Hill; , North Carolina
                [2 ]Department of Health Economics and Management, School of Public Health, Ringgold 48439, universityTehran University of Medical Sciences; , Tehran, Iran
                [3 ]Department of Health Management, School of Public Health, Ringgold 48439, universityKaraj University of Medical Sciences; , Karaj, Iran
                [4 ]Department of Family and Community Medicine, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania
                [5 ]Division of Clinical and Translational Research, Ringgold 20899, universityLarkin Community Hospital; , Florida, USA
                Author notes
                [*]Marziye Najafi, Department of Health Economics and Management, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, 3183753798, Tehran, Iran. Email: Marziyenajafi@ 123456yahoo.com
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5445-2235
                Article
                10.1177_23743735221125439
                10.1177/23743735221125439
                9483965
                36134145
                1b195736-0d04-47f9-89b9-77e628745b2a
                © The Author(s) 2022

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                ts19
                January-December 2022

                patient engagement,involvement,participation,impact,patient-centered outcomes,stakeholder engagement

                Comments

                Comment on this article