Cited by 170Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareMental Health and Patient Involvement

Patients' willingness and ability to participate actively in the reduction of clinical errors: A systematic literature review

Doherty, Carole, Stavropoulou, Charitini·2012·Social Science & Medicine

Abstract

This systematic review identifies the factors that both support and deter patients from being willing and able to participate actively in reducing clinical errors. Specifically, we add to our understanding of the safety culture in healthcare by engaging with the call for more focus on the relational and subjective factors which enable patients' participation (Iedema, Jorm, & Lum, 2009; Ovretveit, 2009). A systematic search of six databases, ten journals and seven healthcare organisations' web sites resulted in the identification of 2714 studies of which 68 were included in the review. These studies investigated initiatives involving patients in safety or studies of patients' perspectives of being actively involved in the safety of their care. The factors explored varied considerably depending on the scope, setting and context of the study. Using thematic analysis we synthesized the data to build an explanation of why, when and how patients are likely to engage actively in helping to reduce clinical errors. The findings show that the main factors for engaging patients in their own safety can be summarised in four categories: illness; individual cognitive characteristics; the clinician-patient relationship; and organisational factors. We conclude that illness and patients' perceptions of their role and status as subordinate to that of clinicians are the most important barriers to their involvement in error reduction. In sum, patients' fear of being labelled "difficult" and a consequent desire for clinicians' approbation may cause them to assume a passive role as a means of actively protecting their personal safety.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.02.056

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 86 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Coulter, A., & Ellins, J. (2006) Patient-focused interventions: A review of the evidence . London: Picker Institute Europe.
  2. DiGiovanni, C.W., Kang, L., & Manuel, J. (2003) Patient Compliance in Avoiding WrongSite Surgery. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 85, 815-819.
  3. Fitzmaurice, D.A., Murray, E.T., Gee, K.M., Allan, T.F., & Hobbs, F.D.R. (2002) A randomised controlled trial of patient self-management of oral anticoagulation treatment compared with primary care management. Journal of Clinical Pathology, 55, 845-849.
  4. Koutanji, M., Davis, R., Vincent, C., & Coulter, A. (2005) The patients' role in patient safety: engaging patients, their representatives, and health professionals. Clinical Risk, 11(3), 99104.
  5. Pope, C., Mays, N., & Popay, J. (2007) Synthesizing Qualitative and Quantitative Health Evidence . Maidenhead: Open University/McGraw-Hill.
  6. Watt. I. S, Birks, Y., Entwistle, V., Gilbody, S., Hall, J., Mansell, P., McCaughan, D., Peat, M., Sheldon, T., Williams, B., &Wright, J. (2009) A review of strategies to promote patient involvement, a study to explore patient's views and attitudes and a pilot study to evaluate the acceptability of selected patient involvement strategies. Patient Safety Research Programme PS/034 . University of York.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Doherty, C., & Stavropoulou, C.
Affiliations
University of Surrey (GB)
Corresponding author
Doherty, Carole
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-07
Volume
75
Issue
2
Pages
257-263
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2113639350
Cited by
170
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
patient participation, medical errors, patient safety, safety culture, clinician-patient relationship, barriers to patient involvement, illness, patient passivity, organizational factors, patient perspectives
MeSH terms
Humans, Mental Health, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Patient Participation, Professional-Patient Relations, Socioeconomic Factors, Medical Errors, Patient Safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review