Meaningful and effective patient engagement: What matters most to stakeholders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine what resources, preparation, and support are needed for patients, providers, and leaders to meaningfully and appropriately engage in patient-centred health system redesign, researchers sought to learn what really matters to these three stakeholder groups. A qualitative descriptive design was selected using purposive participant sampling, focusing on ‘who’, ‘what’ and ‘why’ questions pertaining to stakeholder perceptions about patient engagement in their specific context as patients, providers or leaders. Four project groups were selected; each group was responsible for a strategic initiative within Alberta Health Services and represented one of three different levels of the healthcare system (i.e. program, site or governance). Semi-structured question guides were used to collect data. Thematic analysis of the transcribed participant responses revealed eleven major themes: understanding patient engagement; language, communication, information; level and timing of engagement; recruitment and retention; roles, responsibilities and expectations; reason for being; expense; time commitment; governance and structure; knowing who’s who; and evaluation. Patients, providers and leaders agreed to the importance of communication around the reasons for patient engagement including building trust through collaboration and clearly identifying goals, along with their roles and responsibilities. These stakeholder perspectives are needed to inform the development of tools, resources and education materials required to support patient engagement activities tailored to the needs, understandings and perspectives of stakeholders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".