Evidence mapPaperPMID 22694747Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2012

Patient empowerment: the need to consider it as a measurable patient-reported outcome for chronic conditions.

Marion McAllister, Graham Dunn, Katherine Payne, Linda Davies, Chris Todd

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03786315 (Exploring 'VOLITION' in Context - a Study to Inform the Implementation of a New Intervention), which is not on this map. Cited by 97 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03786315 completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Exploring 'VOLITION' in Context - a Study to Inform the Implementation of a New Intervention

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of ExeterRan2021 to 2022Enrolled72ConditionsDecision Making, Aged, Multimorbidity, General Practice
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

97 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Effectiveness of Internet-based interventions in managing chemotherapy-related symptoms in patients with cancer: a systematic literature review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Factors associated with patient empowerment in Spanish adults with type 2 diabetes: A cross-sectional analysis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Marion McAllisterInstitute of Cancer & Genetics, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN, UK. mcallistermf@cardiff.ac.uk
Graham Dunn
Katherine Payne
Linda Davies
Chris Todd

Funding

Medical Research Council G0601696
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth policy in the UK and elsewhere is prioritising patient empowerment and patient evaluations of healthcare. Patient reported outcome measures now take centre-stage in implementing strategies to increase patient empowerment. This article argues for consideration of patient empowerment itself as a directly measurable patient reported outcome for chronic conditions, highlights some issues in adopting this approach, and outlines a research agenda to enable healthcare evaluation on the basis of patient empowerment. DISCUSSION: Patient empowerment is not a well-defined construct. A range of condition-specific and generic patient empowerment questionnaires have been developed; each captures a different construct e.g. personal control, self-efficacy/self-mastery, and each is informed by a different implicit or explicit theoretical framework. This makes it currently problematic to conduct comparative evaluations of healthcare services on the basis of patient empowerment. A case study (clinical genetics) is used to (1) illustrate that patient empowerment can be a valued healthcare outcome, even if patients do not obtain health status benefits, (2) provide a rationale for conducting work necessary to tighten up the patient empowerment construct (3) provide an exemplar to inform design of interventions to increase patient empowerment in chronic disease. Such initiatives could be evaluated on the basis of measurable changes in patient empowerment, if the construct were properly operationalised as a patient reported outcome measure. To facilitate this, research is needed to develop an appropriate and widely applicable generic theoretical framework of patient empowerment to inform (re)development of a generic measure. This research should include developing consensus between patients, clinicians and policymakers about the content and boundaries of the construct before operationalisation. This article also considers a number of issues for society and for healthcare providers raised by adopting the patient empowerment paradigm. SUMMARY: Healthcare policy is driving the need to consider patient empowerment as a measurable patient outcome from healthcare services. Research is needed to (1) tighten up the construct (2) develop consensus about what is important to include (3) (re)develop a generic measure of patient empowerment for use in evaluating healthcare (4) understand if/how people make trade-offs between empowerment and gain in health status.

Indexed as

Power, PsychologicalChronic DiseaseFemaleHumansMaleOrganizational Case StudiesOutcome Assessment, Health CareSelf ReportUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID22694747
PMCPMC3457855

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.