Patient family advisors’ perspectives on engagement in health‐care quality improvement initiatives: Power and partnership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Engagement of the public in defining and shaping the organization and delivery of health care is increasingly viewed as integral to improving quality and promoting transparent decision making. Meaningful engagement of the public in health-care reform is predicated on shifting entrenched power imbalances between health-care systems and those it claims to serve. OBJECTIVES: To describe the expressions, forms and spaces of power from the perspectives of persons who participated as Patient/Family Advisors (PFAs) in Rapid Process Improvement Workshops (RPIWs) within Saskatchewan, Canada. METHODS: Using a qualitative, interpretive approach, in-depth interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 18 PFAs who had participated in at least one RPIW over the past year. Deductive thematic analysis was informed by Gaventa's model of power. RESULTS: Motivations for serving as a PFA included a sense of obligation to contribute to the improvement of a public system, recognition of their rights as citizens within a publicly funded system and an opportunity to openly express their concerns where previous encounters had been very negative. The invited spaces of the RPIWs were created by policymakers to accord visible power to PFAs. Participation resulted in PFAs gaining new insights into the structure and operations of the system, affirmation of their right to advocate and recognition of the potential to claim spaces of power as consumers. Advisement on specific health-care initiatives using the vehicle of PFAs shaped and promoted new forms and spaces of power, representing one step in a very long road to full engagement of consumers in health care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".