Using the Taxonomy and the Metrics: What to Study When and Why; Comment on “Metrics and Evaluation Tools for Patient Engagement in Healthcare Organization- and System-Level Decision-Making: A Systematic Review”

Document Type : Commentary


1 American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC, USA

2 Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, City University of New York, New York City, NY, USA


Dukhanin and colleagues’ taxonomy of metrics for patient engagement at the organizational and system levels has great potential for supporting more careful and useful evaluations of this ever-growing phenomenon. This commentary highlights the central importance to the taxonomy of metrics assessing the extent of meaningful participation in decision-making by patients, consumers and community members; discusses how the purpose of an evaluation and the organizational relationships among key evaluation stakeholders is likely to influence the choice of metrics in important ways; and suggests a recasting of the metrics in the form of a logic model that supports the selection of metrics that are appropriate for a program given its stage of development and the purposes of the study.


Main Subjects

  1. Dukhanin V, Topazian R, DeCamp M. Metrics and Evaluation Tools for Patient Engagement in Healthcare Organization- and System-Level Decision-Making: A Systematic Review. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(10):889-903. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2018.43
  2. Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann. 1969;35(4):216-224. doi:10.1080/01944366908977225
  3. Carman KL, Dardess P, Maurer M, et al. Patient and family engagement: a framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(2):223-231. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1133
  4. Churgin S. Evaluation. In: Blum HR, ed. Planning for Health. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Human Sciences Press; 1981.
  5. Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1151-1166. doi:10.1111/hex.12090 
  6. Frank L, Forsythe L, Ellis L, et al. Conceptual and practical foundations of patient engagement in research at the patient-centered outcomes research institute. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(5):1033-1041. doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0893-3
  7. Scriven M. Evaluation Bias and its Control. In: Glass G. Eval Studies Rev Ann, Vol. 1. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications; 1976.
  8. Donabedian A. Twenty years of research on the quality of medical care: 1964-1984. Eval Health Prof. 1985;8(3):243-265. doi:10.1177/016327878500800301
Volume 8, Issue 1
January 2019
Pages 51-54
  • Receive Date: 31 July 2018
  • Revise Date: 30 September 2018
  • Accept Date: 30 September 2018
  • First Publish Date: 01 January 2019