CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 498Innovations in Medical EducationPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareMental Health and Patient Involvement

Active patient involvement in the education of health professionals

Towle, Angela, Bainbridge, Lesley, Godolphin, William, Katz, Arlene, Kline, Cathy, Lown, Beth, Madularu, Ioana, Solomon, Patricia +1 more·2010·Medical Education
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03530.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Context Patients as educators (teaching intimate physical examination) first appeared in the 1960s. Since then, rationales for the active involvement of patients as educators have been well articulated. There is great potential to promote the learning of patient‐centred practice, interprofessional collaboration, community involvement, shared decision making and how to support self‐care. Methods We reviewed and summarised the literature on active patient involvement in health professional education. Results A synthesis of the literature reveals increasing diversity in the ways in which patients are involved in education, but also the movement’s weaknesses. Most initiatives are ‘one‐off’ events and are reported as basic descriptions. There is little rigorous research or theory of practice or investigation of behavioural outcomes. The literature is scattered and uses terms (such as ‘patient’!) that are contentious and confusing. Conclusions We propose future directions for research and development, including a taxonomy to facilitate dialogue, an outline of a research strategy and reference to a comprehensive bibliography covering all health and human services. Medical Education 2010: 44 : 64–74

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03530.x

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Towle et al identified different levels of involvement, from paper-based involvement to involvement at the institutional level as codesigners of the medical curriculum in addition to sustained involvement as patient teachers in education, evaluation and curriculum development.

    “Towle et al identified different levels of involvement, from paper-based involvement to involvement at the institutional level as codesigners of the medical curriculum in addition to sustained involvement as patient teachers in education, evaluation and curriculum development.1–4”

    From Role of active patient involvement in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as [2]

  • The patients' roles identified in this review are largely in accordance with levels 3-6 of the spectrum proposed in the review by Towle et al.

    “The patients’ roles identified in this review are largely in accordance with levels 3–6 of the spectrum proposed in the review by Towle et al2 (box 2).”

    From Role of active patient involvement in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as [2]

  • In another role, patients were consulted in institution-level topics and curriculum development beyond specific courses, but rather than being equal partners, they were consulted in a faculty-driven initiative, displaying partial elements of Towle's levels 4, 5 and 6.

    “In another role, patients were consulted in institution-level topics and curriculum development beyond specific courses, but rather than being equal partners, they were consulted in a faculty-driven initiative, displaying partial elements of Towle’s levels 4, 5 and 6.2”

    From Role of active patient involvement in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as [2]

  • An important limitation was the lack of common terminology in the existing literature, potentiating the risk of missing relevant articles.

    “An important limitation was the lack of common terminology in the existing literature, potentiating the risk of missing relevant articles, which has been previously reported as a limitation by other review authors.2”

    From Role of active patient involvement in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as [2]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Towle, A., Bainbridge, L., Godolphin, W., Katz, A., Kline, C., Lown, B., Madularu, I., Solomon, P., & Thistlethwaite, J.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
Corresponding author
Towle, Angela
ORCID
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-12-16
Volume
44
Issue
1
Pages
64-74
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03530.x
OpenAlex
W1512676879
Cited by
498
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 8
FWCI
1.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • 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 involvement, patient educators, health professions education, interprofessional collaboration, shared decision-making, self-care, community participation
MeSH terms
Education, Medical, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Patient Participation, Physician-Patient Relations, Research Design

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