International Journal of Health Policy and Management

International Journal of Health Policy and Management

Patient Engagement and its Evaluation Tools – Current Challenges and Future Directions; Comment on “Metrics and Evaluation Tools for Patient Engagement in Healthcare Organization- and System-Level Decision-Making: A Systematic Review”

Document Type : Commentary

Authors
Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi 1
Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun 2, 3
France Légaré 4, 5
1 Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
2 Health and Social Services Systems, Knowledge Translation and Implementation Component of the Quebec SPOR-SUPPORT Unit, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada
3 Université Laval Primary Care Research Centre (CERSSPL-UL), Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada
4 Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada
5 Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Quebec, QC, Canada
10.15171/ijhpm.2019.16
Abstract
Considering the growing recognition of the importance of patient engagement in healthcare decisions, research and delivery systems, it is important to ensure high quality and efficient patient engagement evaluation tools. In this commentary, we will first highlight the definition and importance of patient engagement. Then we discuss the psychometric properties of the patient engagement evaluation tools identified in a recent review on patient engagement in healthcare organization- and system-level decision-making. Lastly, we suggest future directions for patient engagement and its evaluation tools.
Keywords
Patient Engagement
Systematic Reviews
Evaluation Tools
Technology
Artificial Intelligence
  1. 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
  2. Pomey MP, Flora L, Karazivan P, et al. Le “Montreal model”: enjeux du partenariat relationnel entre patients et professionnels de la santé. Sante Publique. 2015;S1(HS):41-50. doi:10.3917/spub.150.0041
  3. Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:89. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-89
  4. Wilson R. Patient led PROMs must take centre stage in cancer research. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4(1):7. doi:10.1186/s40900-018-0092-4
  5. Epstein RM, Street RL Jr. Patient-centered care for the 21st century: Physicians' roles, health systems and patients' preferences. Philadelphia, PA: American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation; 2008.
  6. Coulter A, Ellins J. Effectiveness of strategies for informing, educating, and involving patients. BMJ. 2007;335(7609):24-27. doi:10.1136/bmj.39246.581169.80
  7. Charmel PA, Frampton SB. Building the business case for patient-centered care. Healthc Financ Manage. 2008;62(3):80-85.
  8. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). Patient and public involvement in health and social care research: A handbook for researchers. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/CCF/funding/how-we-can-help-you/RDS-PPI-Handbook-2014-v8-FINAL.pdf.
  9. Mitton C, Smith N, Peacock S, Evoy B, Abelson J. Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review. Health Policy. 2009;91(3):219-228. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.01.005
  10. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research: Patient Engagement Framework. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48413.html#a8. Published 2014.
  11. About. INVOLVE National Institute for Health Research website. http://www.invo.org.uk/about-involve/. Published 1996.
  12. 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
  13. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):539-549. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8
  14. Rifkin SB, Muller F, Bichmann W. Primary health care: on measuring participation. Soc Sci Med. 1988;26(9):931-940.
  15. Schmidt DH, Rifkin SB. Measuring participation: its use as a managerial tool for district health planners based on a case study in Tanzania. Int J Health Plann Manage. 1996;11(4):345-358. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1751(199610)11:43.0.co;2-f
  16. Kent H, Read J. Measuring consumer participation in mental health services: are attitudes related to professional orientation? Int J Soc Psychiatry. 1998;44(4):295-310. doi:10.1177/002076409804400406
  17. South J, Fairfax P, Green E. Developing an assessment tool for evaluating community involvement. Health Expect. 2005;8(1):64-73. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00313.x
  18. Abelson J, PPEET Research Practice Collaborative. The Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool. https://fhs.mcmaster.ca/publicandpatientengagement/ppeet.html.
  19. Institute for Family-Centered Care. Patient- and Family-Centered Care: A Hospital Self-Assessment Inventory. Bethesda, MD: Institute for Family-Centered Care; 2004.
  20. Metsch JM, Veney JE. Measuring the outcome of consumer participation. J Health Soc Behav. 1973;14(4):368-374.
  21. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34-42. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012
  22. Prinsen CAC, Vohra S, Rose MR, et al. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a  “Core Outcome Set"-a practical guideline. Trials. 2016;17(1):449. doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1555-2
  23. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737-745. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006
  24. el Ansari W, Phillips CJ. Interprofessional collaboration: a stakeholder approach to evaluation of voluntary participation in community partnerships. J Interprof Care. 2001;15(4):351-368.
  25. Shortell SM, Zukoski AP, Alexander JA, et al. Evaluating partnerships for community health improvement: tracking the footprints. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2002;27(1):49-91.
  26. Grant J. The participation of mental health service users in Ontario, Canada: a Canadian Application of the Consumer Participation Questionnaire. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2007;53(2):148-158. doi:10.1177/0020764006074557
  27. Shortell SM, Sehgal NJ, Bibi S, et al. An Early Assessment of Accountable Care Organizations' Efforts to Engage Patients and Their Families. Med Care Res Rev. 2015;72(5):580-604. doi:10.1177/1077558715588874
  28. Boivin A, L'Esperance A, Gauvin FP, et al. Patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making: A systematic review of evaluation tools. Health Expect. 2018;21(6):1075-1084. doi:10.1111/hex.12804
  29. Okoli C, Pawlowski SD. The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management. 2004;42(1):15-29. doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002
  30. Kirshner B, Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38(1):27-36.
  31. Frei A, Svarin A, Steurer-Stey C, Puhan MA. Self-efficacy instruments for patients with chronic diseases suffer from methodological limitations--a systematic review. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7:86. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-7-86
  32. Guyatt GH, Deyo RA, Charlson M, Levine MN, Mitchell A. Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: a clarification. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(5):403-408.
  33. The Topol Review: Preparing the healthcare workforce to deliver the digital future. https://topol.hee.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/HEE-Topol-Review-2019.pdf.  Published February 2019.
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume 8, Issue 6
June 2019
Pages 378-380

  • Received Date 16 November 2018
  • Revised Date 03 March 2019
  • Accepted Date 03 March 2019
  • First Published Date 01 June 2019
  • Published Date 01 June 2019