Evaluation of an advisory committee as a model for patient engagement

Patient engagement (PE) is not well defined and little guidance is available to those attempting to employ PE in decision-making relevant to health system improvement. After completing a 2-year PE project, overseen by an Advisory Committee, our objectives were: 1) to evaluate how effectively the pro...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Cynthia Kendell, Robin Urquhart, Jill Petrella, Sarah MacDonald, Meg McCallum
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	The Beryl Institute 2014
Materias:	patient engagement quality improvement advisory committee evaluation Medicine (General) R5-920 Public aspects of medicine RA1-1270
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/a0a8cf7952e44b2c86a61adff24e7bd9
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:a0a8cf7952e44b2c86a61adff24e7bd9
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:a0a8cf7952e44b2c86a61adff24e7bd92021-11-15T03:52:33ZEvaluation of an advisory committee as a model for patient engagement2372-0247https://doaj.org/article/a0a8cf7952e44b2c86a61adff24e7bd92014-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://pxjournal.org/journal/vol1/iss2/11https://doaj.org/toc/2372-0247Patient engagement (PE) is not well defined and little guidance is available to those attempting to employ PE in decision-making relevant to health system improvement. After completing a 2-year PE project, overseen by an Advisory Committee, our objectives were: 1) to evaluate how effectively the project team engaged the Advisory Committee, 2) to examine how Advisory Committee members perceived PE and their role in PE, and 3) to identify barriers and facilitators to PE in order to improve future efforts. Five members of the Advisory Committee completed semi-structured interviews post-project about their experiences. Thematic analysis identified four themes: the approach, participant contributions, participant understanding of PE, and barriers and facilitators to PE. The use of a committee approach was considered beneficial, providing an opportunity to discuss the project in depth, contributing to relationship building, and helping move the project forward. The social aspect of the committee approach was an important part of the engagement process. Participants felt they contributed primarily by participating in discussion, yet could not identify specific contributions they had made. All participants agreed that the experience was meaningful but not profound with regard to how it would impact their engagement, or their engagement of others, in the future. Although experiences were highly subjective, this study suggests that the act of participating in PE has meaning in and of itself to those involved, independent of the activities and/or outcomes of that participation, reflecting a broader public value that PE is an important component of transparent, accountable health systems.Cynthia KendellRobin UrquhartJill PetrellaSarah MacDonaldMeg McCallumThe Beryl Institutearticlepatient engagementquality improvementadvisory committeeevaluationMedicine (General)R5-920Public aspects of medicineRA1-1270ENPatient Experience Journal (2014)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	patient engagement quality improvement advisory committee evaluation Medicine (General) R5-920 Public aspects of medicine RA1-1270
spellingShingle	patient engagement quality improvement advisory committee evaluation Medicine (General) R5-920 Public aspects of medicine RA1-1270 Cynthia Kendell Robin Urquhart Jill Petrella Sarah MacDonald Meg McCallum Evaluation of an advisory committee as a model for patient engagement
description	Patient engagement (PE) is not well defined and little guidance is available to those attempting to employ PE in decision-making relevant to health system improvement. After completing a 2-year PE project, overseen by an Advisory Committee, our objectives were: 1) to evaluate how effectively the project team engaged the Advisory Committee, 2) to examine how Advisory Committee members perceived PE and their role in PE, and 3) to identify barriers and facilitators to PE in order to improve future efforts. Five members of the Advisory Committee completed semi-structured interviews post-project about their experiences. Thematic analysis identified four themes: the approach, participant contributions, participant understanding of PE, and barriers and facilitators to PE. The use of a committee approach was considered beneficial, providing an opportunity to discuss the project in depth, contributing to relationship building, and helping move the project forward. The social aspect of the committee approach was an important part of the engagement process. Participants felt they contributed primarily by participating in discussion, yet could not identify specific contributions they had made. All participants agreed that the experience was meaningful but not profound with regard to how it would impact their engagement, or their engagement of others, in the future. Although experiences were highly subjective, this study suggests that the act of participating in PE has meaning in and of itself to those involved, independent of the activities and/or outcomes of that participation, reflecting a broader public value that PE is an important component of transparent, accountable health systems.
format	article
author	Cynthia Kendell Robin Urquhart Jill Petrella Sarah MacDonald Meg McCallum
author_facet	Cynthia Kendell Robin Urquhart Jill Petrella Sarah MacDonald Meg McCallum
author_sort	Cynthia Kendell
title	Evaluation of an advisory committee as a model for patient engagement
title_short	Evaluation of an advisory committee as a model for patient engagement
title_full	Evaluation of an advisory committee as a model for patient engagement
title_fullStr	Evaluation of an advisory committee as a model for patient engagement
title_full_unstemmed	Evaluation of an advisory committee as a model for patient engagement
title_sort	evaluation of an advisory committee as a model for patient engagement
publisher	The Beryl Institute
publishDate	2014
url	https://doaj.org/article/a0a8cf7952e44b2c86a61adff24e7bd9
work_keys_str_mv	AT cynthiakendell evaluationofanadvisorycommitteeasamodelforpatientengagement AT robinurquhart evaluationofanadvisorycommitteeasamodelforpatientengagement AT jillpetrella evaluationofanadvisorycommitteeasamodelforpatientengagement AT sarahmacdonald evaluationofanadvisorycommitteeasamodelforpatientengagement AT megmccallum evaluationofanadvisorycommitteeasamodelforpatientengagement
_version_	1718428885586018304

Evaluation of an advisory committee as a model for patient engagement

Ejemplares similares