Table 4 Characteristics of patient engagement studies
From: Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review
Study characteristics (n = 48) | Number | Percent |
|---|---|---|
Country | ||
 UK | 26 | 54 |
 USA | 11 | 23 |
 Canada | 3 | 6 |
 Australia | 2 | 4 |
 Ireland | 2 | 4 |
 Mexico | 1 | 2 |
 Sweden | 1 | 2 |
 Netherlands | 1 | 2 |
 Norway | 1 | 2 |
Type of service | ||
 Mental health | 17 | 35 |
 General health/community/primary care | 5 | 10 |
 Pediatric/maternity care | 6 | 13 |
 Acute care/emergency | 6 | 13 |
 Cancer | 3 | 6 |
 HIV/AIDS | 3 | 6 |
 Diabetes | 2 | 4 |
 Smoking cessation/substance abuse | 2 | 4 |
 Physical and intellectual disability | 1 | 2 |
 Elderly/home treatment | 1 | 2 |
 Stroke | 1 | 2 |
 Multiple sclerosis | 1 | 2 |
Design | ||
 Qualitative | 27 | 56 |
 Mixed methods | 13 | 27 |
 Quantitative | 3 | 6 |
 Other | 5 | 11 |
Level of engagement | ||
 Co-design | 24 | 50 |
 Consultative to co-design | 24 | 50 |
Type of quality of care outcome* | ||
 Discrete product | ||
  Education/tool development | 11 | 23 |
  Enhanced policy or planning document | 15 | 31 |
 Care process or structural outcome | ||
  Enhanced care process or service delivery | 35 | 73 |
  Enhanced governance | 5 | 10 |
Evaluation of patient experiences of engagement process | ||
 Formal | 12 | 25 |
 Informal; anecdotal reports | 11 | 23 |
 None | 25 | 52 |
Evaluation of engagement methods | ||
 Yes | 25 | 52 |
 No | 23 | 48 |