Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42148450›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in health services2026

Stimulating co-production in healthcare quality improvement: raising the interest of health professionals to collaborate with patients.

Mats Brommels

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in health services, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

1 author.

Mats BrommelsMedical Management Centre, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is ample evidence that patients contribute substantially to quality improvement, i.a. by offering perspectives and opportunities for improvement not necessarily noticed by professionals and managers and increasing the patient-centredness of improved care processes. The literature on co-producing quality improvement highlights mostly structural and organisational barriers to patient involvement. However, several studies report about health professionals being sceptical to patient co-production in general and the same attitude might prevent them from engaging in collaboration in quality improvement. The vast literature on professional practice change, including changes informed by new scientific evidence and required by clinical guidelines, show the value of interventions guided by theories from social psychology. In this paper advice is sought from those theories on how to increase the willingness of health professionals to co-produce QI with patients. Based on a synthesis of that analysis the following recommendations are formulated: Showing the benefits of patient involvement to professionals and how those resonate with their professional beliefs and goals will have a positive effect on their attitudes towards co-production. Engaging professional champions to lead QI will create social pressure and establish norms that will attract other professionals to participate. Enabling professionals to actively participate in designing the improvement processes will provide them with a sense of control of their working conditions that will increase their intrinsic motivation. Institutionalising co-produced quality improvement as organisational routines will show professionals that QI is an ordinary day-today activity that will enrich their clinical practice.

Indexed as

behavioural changeco-productionpatient participationprofessional attitudesquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID42148450
PMCPMC13171753

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.