Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,299

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 78 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review

Open access
Bombard, Yvonne, Baker, G. Ross, Orlando, Elaina, Fancott, Carol, Bhatia, Pooja, Casalino, Selina, Onate, Kanecy, Denis, Jean-Louis, Pomey, Marie-Pascale·2018·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To identify the strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients in the design, delivery, and evaluation of health services. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, PsychINFO, Social Science Abstracts, EBSCO, and ISI Web of Science from 1990 to 2016 for empirical studies addressing the active participation of patients, caregivers, or families in the design, delivery and evaluation of health services to improve quality of care. Thematic analysis was used to identify (1) strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients, (2) outcomes of patient engagement, and (3) patients' experiences of being engaged. RESULTS: Forty-eight studies were included. Strategies and contextual factors that enable patient engagement were thematically grouped and related to techniques to enhance design, recruitment, involvement and leadership action, and those aimed to creating a receptive context. Reported outcomes ranged from educational or tool development and informed policy or planning documents (discrete products) to enhanced care processes or service delivery and governance (care process or structural outcomes). The level of engagement appears to influence the outcomes of service redesign-discrete products largely derived from low-level engagement (consultative unidirectional feedback)-whereas care process or structural outcomes mainly derived from high-level engagement (co-design or partnership strategies). A minority of studies formally evaluated patients' experiences of the engagement process (n = 12; 25%). While most experiences were positive-increased self-esteem, feeling empowered, or independent-some patients sought greater involvement and felt that their involvement was important but tokenistic, especially when their requests were denied or decisions had already been made. CONCLUSIONS: Patient engagement can inform patient and provider education and policies, as well as enhance service delivery and governance. Additional evidence is needed to understand patients' experiences of the engagement process and whether these outcomes translate into improved quality of care. REGISTRATION: N/A (data extraction completed prior to registration on PROSPERO).

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/s13012-018-0784-z

Cites

78 of 78 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 78 references

Cited by

See all 1,299

Metadata

Authors
Bombard, Y., Baker, G. R., Orlando, E., Fancott, C., Bhatia, P., Casalino, S., Onate, K., Denis, J.-L., & Pomey, M.-P.
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2018-07-26
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
98-98
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2883929777
Cited by
1,299
References
78
FWCI
16.27
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: Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s13012-018-0784-z
The paper
Bombard, Y., Baker, G. R., Orlando, E., Fancott, C., Bhatia, P., Casalino, S., Onate, K., Denis, J.-L., & Pomey, M.-P. (2018). Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review. Implementation Science. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0784-z

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.