ArticleBMJ open2025
Feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of an intervention on patient engagement in patient safety: a prospective, mixed-methods evaluation in patient and family advisory councils (PFACs).
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of 'Partners for Patient Safety' (P4PS) programme for strengthening competencies and patient engagement at the organisational level.
designProspective study with three measurement points (baseline, interim and follow-up) and an explanatory sequential mixed methods approach for formative and process evaluation.
settingOncology-focused patient and family advisory councils (PFACs) integrated into healthcare organisations and networks in five German federal states.
participantsInitially, 36 stakeholders of six PFACs were recruited. At follow-up, 27 participated in all intervention modules and completed all surveys. From those, 14 participated in follow-up interviews.
interventionThe P4PS programme consists of two sequentially implemented modules: (1) an e-learning module and (2) a 4-hour on-site workshop. The programme focuses on the following topics: patient safety (PS), communication strategies and PFAC engagement in respective care organisations. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were feasibility domains, assessed via standardised (acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility) and self-developed measures (relevance, acceptability and social validity, complexity and practicability, demand and implementation, and adaptability). Secondary outcome measure was preliminary effectiveness, measured via changes in self-assessed competencies in PS, communication and engagement.
resultsFeasibility ratings were high across standardised and self-developed measures (median range: 4-5 of 5). Qualitative data showed P4PS programme's practical relevance, need for organisational support and its adaptability across PFAC contexts. Effectiveness analyses showed significant improvements in PS competencies (adjusted p<0.01, Wilcoxon's
conclusionsThis P4PS programme showed high feasibility and effectiveness, it increased key competencies, clarified roles and promoted active PFAC engagement in PS. Future work needs to address organisational support and sustainable implementation with application to context as well as long-term evaluation across different care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00034733; German Clinical Trials Register.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
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.