The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Involving patients in setting priorities for healthcare improvement: a cluster randomized trial
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Patients are increasingly seen as active partners in healthcare. While patient involvement in individual clinical decisions has been extensively studied, no trial has assessed how patients can effectively be involved in collective healthcare decisions affecting the population. The goal of this study was to test the impact of involving patients in setting healthcare improvement priorities for chronic care at the community level. DESIGN: Cluster randomized controlled trial. Local communities were randomized in intervention (priority setting with patient involvement) and control sites (no patient involvement). SETTING: Communities in a canadian region were required to set priorities for improving chronic disease management in primary care, from a list of 37 validated quality indicators. INTERVENTION: Patients were consulted in writing, before participating in face-to-face deliberation with professionals. CONTROL: Professionals established priorities among themselves, without patient involvement. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 172 individuals from six communities participated in the study, including 83 chronic disease patients, and 89 health professionals. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the level of agreement between patients' and professionals' priorities. Secondary outcomes included professionals' intention to use the selected quality indicators, and the costs of patient involvement. RESULTS: Priorities established with patients were more aligned with core generic components of the Medical Home and Chronic Care Model, including: access to primary care, self-care support, patient participation in clinical decisions, and partnership with community organizations (p < 0.01). Priorities established by professionals alone placed more emphasis on the technical quality of single disease management. The involvement intervention fostered mutual influence between patients and professionals, which resulted in a 41% increase in agreement on common priorities (95%CI: +12% to +58%, p < 0.01). Professionals' intention to use the selected quality indicators was similar in intervention and control sites. Patient involvement increased the costs of the prioritization process by 17%, and required 10% more time to reach consensus on common priorities. CONCLUSIONS: Patient involvement can change priorities driving healthcare improvement at the population level. Future research should test the generalizability of these findings to other contexts, and assess its impact on patient care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands National Trial Register #NTR2496.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions
Stacey, D., Légaré, F., Lewis, K., Barry, M. J., Bennett, C. L., Eden, K. B., Holmes-Rovner, M., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Lyddiatt, A., Thomson, R., et al. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub5 · Cited by 6,685
Improving chronic illness care: translating evidence into action
Wagner, E. H., Austin, B. T., Davis, C., Hindmarsh, M., Schaefer, J., & Bonomi, A. (2001) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.20.6.64 · Cited by 3,446
Improving Primary Care for Patients With Chronic Illness
Bodenheimer, T. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.14.1775 · Cited by 2,961 · cited 1×
“Patient involvement shifted healthcare improvement priorities toward core generic components of the Patient-Centered Medical Home and Chronic Care Model, including timely access to a regular primary care provider, self-care support, patient participation in clinical decision-making, and partnership with community orga…”
BackgroundInteractive Health Communication Applications for people with chronic disease
Murray, E., Burns, J., See Tai, S., Lai, R., & Nazareth, I. (2005) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004274.pub4 · Cited by 722 · cited 1×
“, patient decision aids, selfmanagement support, and health education) [12-18].”
BackgroundBarr, V., Robinson, S., Marin-Link, B., Underhill, L., Dotts, A., Ravensdale, D., & Salivaras, S. (2003) · Healthcare Quarterly · doi:10.12927/hcq.2003.16763 · Cited by 686
Cited by
Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review
Bombard, Y., Baker, G. R., Orlando, E., Fancott, C., Bhatia, P., Casalino, S., Onate, K., Denis, J.-L., & Pomey, M.-P. (2018) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-018-0784-z · Cited by 1,299
Manafo, E., Petermann, L., Mason-Lai, P., & Vandall-Walker, V. (2018) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-018-0282-4 · Cited by 482
Flora, L., Pomey, M.-P., Karazivan, P., Dumez, V., Lebel, P., Vanier, M.-C., Débarges, B., Clavel, N., & Jouet, E. (2015) · Santé Publique · doi:10.3917/spub.150.0041 · Cited by 357
Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature
Manafò, E., Petermann, L., Vandall-Walker, V., & Mason-Lai, P. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0193579 · Cited by 285
Boivin, A., L'Espérance, A., Gauvin, F., Dumez, V., Macaulay, A. C., Lehoux, P., & Abelson, J. (2018) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12804 · Cited by 285
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Boivin, A., Lehoux, P., Lacombe, R., Burgers, J., & Grol, R.
- Venue
- Implementation Science
- Published
- 2014-02-20
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 24-24
- ISSN
- 1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2111834230
- Cited by
- 245
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 36.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Involving patients in setting priorities for healthcare improvement: a cluster randomized trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1748-5908-9-24
- The paper
- Boivin, A., Lehoux, P., Lacombe, R., Burgers, J., & Grol, R. (2014). Involving patients in setting priorities for healthcare improvement: a cluster randomized trial. Implementation Science. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-24
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.