P Michel1, A Brudon2, Mr-P Pomey3, I Durieu4, N Baille2, A-M Schott4, I Dadon2, C Saout5, A Kouevi6, F Blanchardon7, B Volta-Paulet2, Q Reynaud4, J Haesebaert4. 1. HESPER EA 7425, université de Lyon, université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69373 Lyon, France; Hospices civils de Lyon, 69002 Lyon, France; Institut français de l'expérience patient, 69005 Lyon, France. Electronic address: philippe.michel@chu-lyon.fr. 2. Hospices civils de Lyon, 69002 Lyon, France. 3. Department of Health Administration, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, Institute of Public Health, Montreal, QC, Canada. 4. HESPER EA 7425, université de Lyon, université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69373 Lyon, France; Hospices civils de Lyon, 69002 Lyon, France. 5. Haute Autorité de santé, 93210 Saint-Denis, France. 6. Institut français de l'expérience patient, 69005 Lyon, France. 7. France Assos Santé Rhône-Alpes, 69006 Lyon, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The establishment of a common pragmatic terminology represents the first step in structuring patient engagement initiatives in healthcare facilities. However, none is currently available in French. As part of the deployment of patient engagement within a French University Hospital Center, we propose a terminology of patient engagement. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the international literature that aimed at identifying the main conceptual and terminological frameworks for the engagement of patients, users and citizens in the healthcare system until 2019 in the PubMed and Cairn.info databases for English and French language articles. Additionally, we identified concepts and practices in the leading organizations of countries where this approach was implemented (United States, Canada and especially the province of Quebec, United Kingdom) and completed this approach by close exchanges and reflections with the team that developed the Montreal model. RESULTS: In total, 75 references and Internet resources were consulted. Patient, interaction, patient experience, experiential knowledge, patient engagement, patient partner and its variations as a resource patient, peer-supporter, trainer, researcher and coach have been defined. CONCLUSION: This terminology of patient engagement proposes an initial stabilization of the vocabulary, using a pragmatic approach. This contribution is a first step aiming at promoting the development of a new model of care and more broadly of healthcare system management, involving scientific and experiential knowledge.
BACKGROUND: The establishment of a common pragmatic terminology represents the first step in structuring patient engagement initiatives in healthcare facilities. However, none is currently available in French. As part of the deployment of patient engagement within a French University Hospital Center, we propose a terminology of patient engagement. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the international literature that aimed at identifying the main conceptual and terminological frameworks for the engagement of patients, users and citizens in the healthcare system until 2019 in the PubMed and Cairn.info databases for English and French language articles. Additionally, we identified concepts and practices in the leading organizations of countries where this approach was implemented (United States, Canada and especially the province of Quebec, United Kingdom) and completed this approach by close exchanges and reflections with the team that developed the Montreal model. RESULTS: In total, 75 references and Internet resources were consulted. Patient, interaction, patient experience, experiential knowledge, patient engagement, patient partner and its variations as a resource patient, peer-supporter, trainer, researcher and coach have been defined. CONCLUSION: This terminology of patient engagement proposes an initial stabilization of the vocabulary, using a pragmatic approach. This contribution is a first step aiming at promoting the development of a new model of care and more broadly of healthcare system management, involving scientific and experiential knowledge.
Authors: M P Pomey; M de Guise; M Desforges; K Bouchard; C Vialaron; L Normandin; M Iliescu-Nelea; I Fortin; I Ganache; C Régis; Z Rosberger; D Charpentier; L Bélanger; M Dorval; D P Ghadiri; M Lavoie-Tremblay; A Boivin; J F Pelletier; N Fernandez; A M Danino Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: D Pougheon Bertrand; A Fanchini; P Lombrail; G Rault; A Chansard; N Le Breton; C Frenod; F Milon; C Heymes-Royer; D Segretain; M Silber; S Therouanne; J Haesebaert; C Llerena; P Michel; Q Reynaud Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 4.123
Authors: David A Walsh; Marco Boeri; Lucy Abraham; Jo Atkinson; Andrew G Bushmakin; Joseph C Cappelleri; Brett Hauber; Kathleen Klein; Leo Russo; Lars Viktrup; Dennis Turk Journal: Eur J Pain Date: 2022-01-08 Impact factor: 3.651