Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 245

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 access
Boivin, Antoine, Lehoux, Pascale, Lacombe, Réal, Burgers, Jako, Grol, Richard·2014·Implementation Science

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1748-5908-9-24

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 245

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.