Understanding the connection between hospital goals and patient and family engagement: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The person-centered care movement has influenced hospitals to make patient and family engagement (PE) an explicit commitment in their strategic plans. This is often reflected in mission, vision, and value (MVV) statements, which are organizational artifacts intended to influence the attitudes, beliefs, and actions of hospital teams and employees because of their saliency in organizational documents and communications. Previous research has found that organizational goals for PE, like those articulated in MVV statements, can lead to effective and meaningful PE. However, a deeper understanding of how and under which circumstances MVV statements encourage and promote PE practices is needed. A scoping review was conducted to understand the connection between hospital PE goals (such as MVV statements) and PE processes and practices. The research question was: what is known about how hospital MVV statements relate to PE processes and activities? Following Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review approach, 27 articles were identified as relevant to the research question. These articles revealed five strategies that help realize hospital PE goals: communicating organizational goals; aligning documents that convey organizational goals; aligning organizational processes to support PE; providing employees with resources and support; and motivating and empowering employees to integrate PE into their work. We discuss the implications of misalignment between hospital goals and practices, which reduce team and individual motivation toward hospital PE goals.
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 | 0.012 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".