Examining the Process and Effects of Engaging Patients and Family in Health Service Evaluation
Results from a One-Year Prospective Intervention Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.69932Keywords:
collaborative approaches to evaluation, health quality improvement, patient and family engagement, program evaluationAbstract
Research on program evaluation in the context of patient and family engagement is highly limited. Collaborative approaches to evaluation (CAE), with their emphasis on evaluators working in partnership with program community members, align well with patient- and family-centred care philosophy and hold great promise in leveraging desired outcomes. In this prospective intervention case study, we tracked a one-year collaborative initiative to engage health care providers, patients, and family members in improvement-oriented needs assessment activities. The findings illuminate the lived experiences of health-care staff, patients, and family members with the CAE process. We conclude with implications for ongoing research and practice.
References
Abelson, J., Li, K., Wilson, G., Shields, K., Schneider, C., & Boesveld, S. (2015). Supporting quality public and patient engagement in health system organizations: Development and usability testing of the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET). Health Expectations, 19(4), 817 – 827. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12378. Medline:26113295
Abelson, J., Tripp, L., Kandasamy, S., & Burrows, K., on behalf of the PPEET Implementation Study Team. (2019). Supporting the evaluation of public and patient engagement in health system organizations: Results from an implementation research study. Health Expectations, 22(5), 1132 – 1143. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12949. Medline:31373754
Armstrong, N., Herbert, G., Aveling, E. - L., Dixon-Woods, M., & Martin, G. (2013). Optimizing patient involvement in quality improvement. Health Expectations, 16(3), e36 – e47. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12039. Medline:23374430
Baker, G. R. (2014). Evidence boost: A review of research highlighting how patient engagement contributes to improved care. http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/sf-docs/default-source/reports/evidenceboost-rossbaker-peimprovedcare-e.pdf?sfvrsn=6
Baker, G. R., & Denis, J. L. (2011). A comparative study of three transformative health care systems: Lessons for Canada. http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/sf-docs/default-source/commissioned-research-reports/Baker-Denis-EN.pdf?sfvrsn=0
Baker, G. R., Fancott, C., Judd, M., & O’Connor, P. (2016). Expanding patient engagement in quality improvement and health system redesign: Three Canadian case studies. Healthcare Management Forum, 29(5), 176 – 182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0840470416645601. Medline:27576853
Baker, G. R., Judd, M., Fancott, C., & Maika, C. (2016). Creating “engagement-capable environments” in health care. Healthcare Quarterly, 21, 11–34.
Bate, P., & Robert, G. (2007). Bringing user experience to health care improvement: The concepts, methods and practices of experience-based design. Radcliffe.
Bombard, Y., & Baker, R. G. (2011). Patient engagement: Evidence on successful strategies. Paper presented at the meeting of The Change Foundation, Toronto, ON.
Cousins, J. (Ed.) (2020). Collaborative approaches to evaluation. Sage.
Cousins, J. B., & Whitmore, E. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 1998(80), 5 – 23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ev.1114
Cousins, J. B., Whitmore, E., & Shulha, L. M. (2013). Arguments for a common set of principles for collaborative inquiry in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 34(1), 7–22.
Crawford, M. J., Rutter, D., Manley, C., Weaver, T., Bhui, K., Fulop, N., & Tyrer, P. (2002). Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care. British Medical Journal, 325(7375), 1 – 5. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7375.1263. Medline:12458240
Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Sage.
Frosch, D. L., May, S. G., Rendle, K. A. S., Tietbohl, C., & Elwyn, G. (2012). Authoritarian physicians and patients’ fear of being labeled “difficult” among key obstacles to shared decision making. Health Affairs, 31(5), 1030 – 1038. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0576. Medline:22566443
Fudge, N., Wolfe, C. D. A., & McKevitt, C. (2007). Assessing the promise of user involvement in health service development: Ethnographic study. British Medical Journal, 336(313), 1 – 8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39456.552257.be. Medline:18230646
Gagliardi, A. R., Lemieux-Charles, L., Brown, A. D., Sullivan, T., & Goel, V. (2008a). Barriers to patient involvement in health service planning and evaluation: An exploratory study. Patient Education and Counseling, 70(2), 234 – 241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.09.009. Medline:18023129
Gagliardi, A. R., Lemieux-Charles, L., Brown, A. D., Sullivan, T., & Goel, V. (2008b). Stakeholder preferences for cancer care performance indicators. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 21(2), 175 – 189. https://doi.org/10.1108/09526860810859030. Medline:18578202
Gilbert, N., & Cousins, J. B. (2017). Advancing patient engagement in health service improvement: What can the evaluation community offer? Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 32(2), 1–20.
Leshem, S., & Trafford, V. (2007). Overlooking the conceptual framework. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(1), 93 – 105. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290601081407
Luxford, K., Safran, D. G., & Delbanco, T. (2011). Promoting patient-centered care: A qualitative study of facilitators and barriers in healthcare organizations with a reputation for improving the patient experience. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 23(5), 510 – 515. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzr024. Medline:21586433
MacNaughton, G. (2001). Action research. In G. MacNaughton, S. A. Rolfe, & I. Siraj-Blatchford (Eds.), Doing early childhood research: International perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 208 – 223). Allen & Unwin.
Maher, L. M., Hayward, B., Hayward, P., & Walsh, C. (2017), Increasing patient engagement in healthcare service design: A qualitative evaluation of a co-design programme in New Zealand. Patient Experience Journal, 4(1), 22 – 32. https://doi.org/10.35680/23720247.1149
Miles, M. S., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage. Ortlipp, M. (2008). Keeping and using reflective journals in the qualitative research process. Qualitative Report, 13(4), 695 – 705. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1579
Robinson, T. T., & Cousins, J. B. (2004). Internal participatory evaluation as an organizational learning system: A longitudinal case study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30, 1 – 22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-7599.2008.0060.x
Shulha, L. M., Whitmore, E., Cousins, J. B., Gilbert, N., & Al Hudib, H. (2016). Introducing evidence-based principles to guide collaborative approaches to evaluation: Results of an empirical process. American Journal of Evaluation, 37(2), 193–215.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
Tedford Gold, S. K., Abelson, J., & Charles, C. A. (2005). From rhetoric to reality: Including patient voices in supportive cancer care planning. Health Expectations, 8(3), 195 – 209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2005.00334.x. Medline:16098150
Van De Bovenkamp, H. M., Trappenburg, M. J., & Grit, K. J. (2009). Patient participation in collective healthcare decision making: The Dutch model. Health Expectations, 13(1), 73 – 85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00567.x. Medline:19719537
Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Nathalie Gilbert, J. Bradley Cousins
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors contributing to The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 (CC-BY-NC) license. This licence allows this work to be copied, distributed, remixed, transformed, and built upon for any purpose provided that appropriate attribution is given, a link is provided to the license, and changes made were indicated.
Authors retain copyright of their work and grant the journal right of first publication.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
