Patient and family engagement: Bridging together interprofessional practice and patient- and family-centred care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient and family engagement as part of the health care team is increasingly recommended to meet the objective of providing safer and more coordinated care, as well as enhancing patient satisfaction. This project explores both health care professionals’ and patients and families’ experiences with patient- and family-centred care (PFCC) and interprofessional practice (IPP). Data were collected through individual interviews with 29 health care professionals and 17 patients and families on medicine and pediatrics at a tertiary care teaching hospital. Inductive coding and thematic analysis outcomes are presented using qualitative description. We used communicative action theory to interpret the gap that emerges in our findings between the ideals and practice of IPP and PFCC. Our findings reveal that strategic action takes place far more often than communicative action. The domination of communication by health care professionals, among other systemic factors in health care, contributes to the marginalized status of patients and families in the health care team instead of being at the centre, and them being informed instead of being truly engaged. The lived experiences of patients and families are overshadowed by the needs of the health care system. Patient and family engagement has the potential to support the implementation of PFCC and IPP in health care delivery. Communicative action theory could be used as a theoretical framework for further research and evaluation of patient and family engagement. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Patient, Family & Community Engagement lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework (https://www.theberylinstitute.org/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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".