Evaluating the impact of engagement: An introduction to the Engage with Impact Toolkit
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Patient and public engagement and involvement has become embedded in many sectors of the health system internationally, from research to health system governance. There is growing interest in understanding how to evaluate the impact of this engagement on individuals involved, organizations, programs and on health outcomes but few tools are available to support this work. To meet this need, we developed the Engage with Impact Toolkit, an evaluation resource to support health system organizations and researchers to evaluate the impacts of patient engagement. Methods And Involvement: The toolkit was co-designed with the Evaluating Patient Engagement Working Group, a multidisciplinary group of patient partners, engagement staff, researchers and government personnel working within the health sector in Ontario, Canada. The working group members fully collaborated to co-develop the evaluation toolkit. Work began with a project scoping phase and a literature review. Working group members identified their priorities for this work, and the literature was reviewed to identify previously noted impacts of engagement. A modified concept mapping approach followed. A brainstorming survey was sent to the working group and a broader group of patient partners and engagement leads to identify potential impacts of engagement on individuals, programs, organizations and health systems. The brainstormed items were sorted and combined into a smaller set of items. A second survey was conducted to rate the importance of evaluating each item. In the final stage, the working group deliberated to finalize the items and design the toolkit. Results: The scoping phase resulted in a co-developed goal of creating an evaluation toolkit that was practical, accessible and menu-driven. Concept mapping process with members of the engagement community in Ontario led to 237 impact statements that were sorted, discussed and combined into 81 unique items. Following further rating and sorting, the items were consolidated into a final list of 35 impacts which we mapped across 8 domains: (1) knowledge and skills; (2) confidence and trust; (3) equity and inclusivity; (4) priorities and decisions; (5) effectiveness and efficiency; (6) patient-centredness; (7) culture change; and, (8) patient outcomes and experience. The working group worked to create a web-based toolkit that includes these impact items along with evaluation guidance, which is hosted at www.evaluateengagement.ca Impacts, Learnings And Next Steps: The online toolkit is now publicly available in French and English. The toolkit has been used to evaluate several patient engagement approaches within the health system, government and research teams to date. While the toolkit was developed with the Ontario context in mind, it has been used by groups in several Canadian jurisdictions and we anticipate that it will be useful in international settings. The learnings from this approach could be used by groups in other regions to refine the toolkit and impact items for their own contexts, in partnership with patient partners and other stakeholders. Further work is underway to evaluate the toolkit itself with end users. The toolkit will continue to be updated and modified based on user feedback.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,091 | 0,110 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,012 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,020 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,016 | 0,007 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».