Stuart W Grande1, Marjan J Faber2, Marie-Anne Durand3, Rachel Thompson1, Glyn Elwyn4. 1. The Dartmouth Center for Health Care Delivery Science, Dartmouth College, Hanover, USA. 2. Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. School of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire, UK. 4. The Dartmouth Center for Health Care Delivery Science, Dartmouth College, Hanover, USA; The Cochrane Institute for Primary Care and Public Health, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, USA. Electronic address: glynelwyn@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Examine existing reviews of patient engagement methods to propose a model where the focus is on engaging patients in clinical workflows, and to assess the feasibility of advocated patient engagement methods. METHODS: A literature search of reviews of patient engagement methods was conducted. Included reviews were peer-reviewed, written in English, and focused on methods that targeted patients or patient-provider dyads. Methods were categorized to propose a conceptual model. The feasibility of methods was assessed using an adapted rating system. RESULTS: We observed that we could categorize patient engagement methods based on information provision, patient activation, and patient-provider collaboration. Methods could be divided by high and low feasibility, predicated on the extent of extra work required by the patient or clinical system. Methods that have good fit with existing workflows and that require proportional amounts of work by patients are likely to be the most feasible. CONCLUSION: Implementation of patient engagement methods is likely to depend on finding a "sweet-spot" where demands required by patients generate improved knowledge and motivate active participation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Attention should be given to those interventions and methods that advocate feasibility with patients, providers, and organizational workflows.
OBJECTIVE: Examine existing reviews of patient engagement methods to propose a model where the focus is on engaging patients in clinical workflows, and to assess the feasibility of advocated patient engagement methods. METHODS: A literature search of reviews of patient engagement methods was conducted. Included reviews were peer-reviewed, written in English, and focused on methods that targeted patients or patient-provider dyads. Methods were categorized to propose a conceptual model. The feasibility of methods was assessed using an adapted rating system. RESULTS: We observed that we could categorize patient engagement methods based on information provision, patient activation, and patient-provider collaboration. Methods could be divided by high and low feasibility, predicated on the extent of extra work required by the patient or clinical system. Methods that have good fit with existing workflows and that require proportional amounts of work by patients are likely to be the most feasible. CONCLUSION: Implementation of patient engagement methods is likely to depend on finding a "sweet-spot" where demands required by patients generate improved knowledge and motivate active participation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Attention should be given to those interventions and methods that advocate feasibility with patients, providers, and organizational workflows.
Authors: Jennifer L Wolff; Jonathan D Darer; Andrea Berger; Deserae Clarke; Jamie A Green; Rebecca A Stametz; Tom Delbanco; Jan Walker Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Nathalie Moise; Louise Falzon; Megan Obi; Siqin Ye; Sapana Patel; Christopher Gonzalez; Kelsey Bryant; Ian M Kronish Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Marie-Pascale Pomey; Djahanchah P Ghadiri; Philippe Karazivan; Nicolas Fernandez; Nathalie Clavel Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-04-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anna R Gagliardi; France Légaré; Melissa C Brouwers; Fiona Webster; Elizabeth Badley; Sharon Straus Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 7.327