Conceptual frameworks and degrees of patient engagement in the planning and designing of health services: A scoping review of qualitative studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasingly, patients are being recognized as essential partners in the solutions to healthcare system problems. Patient engagement has been referred to as the “holy grail” and next “blockbuster drug” of health care because it may be revolutionary for transforming the design, delivery, and responsiveness of health services. Patients engage in a variety of healthcare activities, and there are multiple frameworks that depict the degrees of patient engagement in these activities. The literature also uses a variety of terms and concepts to depict the degrees of patient engagement. Moreover, meaningful patient engagement is a concept widely utilized in the literature without a clear definition. The conceptual boundaries and differences between degrees of engagement are unclear. This scoping review summarizes the descriptive characteristics, the degrees of engagement, and examines the terms used to depict meaningful engagement as conceptualized by studies on planning and designing of administrative or health services and interventions. The research questions for this study are: What are the descriptive and study characteristics of studies where patients engage in planning and designing activities? What terms do studies use to depict meaningful patient engagement? This review found a variety of terms used by the literature to depict meaningful engagement: collaboration, cooperation, co-production, active involvement, partnership, and consumer and peer leadership. This review also found that studies seldom use patient engagement frameworks to identify the degree of engagement. The implications of these findings are discussed in light of the literature on patient engagement and recommendations for future practice are provided. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Patient, Family & Community Engagement lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework. (http://bit.ly/ExperienceFramework) Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".