Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jul 26;13(1):98.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0784-z.

Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review

Yvonne Bombard  1   2 , G Ross Baker  3 , Elaina Orlando  3   4 , Carol Fancott  3 , Pooja Bhatia  3 , Selina Casalino  5 , Kanecy Onate  3 , Jean-Louis Denis  6 , Marie-Pascale Pomey  7
Affiliations

Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review

Yvonne Bombard et al. Implement Sci. .

Abstract

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).

Keywords: Health delivery; Health services; Patient engagement; Patient involvement; Quality improvement; Quality of care; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests. All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Patient engagement frameworks used for the selection and analyses of studies included in our review. The red box indicates the level of engagement along the continuum that is the focus of our studies included in our review [11]. The organizing framework used for analyzing the studies reviewed [8]
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Flow diagram for search and selection process. From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6 (6): e1000097. 10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Darzi A. High quality care for all: our journey so far. London: Department of Health; 2008.
    1. Ontario Health Quality Council. QMonitor: 2009 report on Ontari’s health system. Toronto: Government of Ontario; 2009.
    1. Institute of Medicine . Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 2001.
    1. Bradshaw PL. Service user involvement in the NHS in England: genuine user participation or a dogma-driven folly? J Nurs Manag. 2008;16(6):673–681. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2008.00910.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Say RE, Thomson R. The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions—challenges for doctors. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):542–545. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.542. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types