Quality of Life Research

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 1087–1096 | Cite as

Engaging patients to recover life projectuality: an Italian cross-disease framework

Patient Engagement Special Section



Chronic disease is recognized as having a large impact on patient quality of life (QoL), which can be defined as an individual’s satisfaction or happiness with life in domains he or she considers important. Policy makers and clinicians recognize increasingly that patients can safeguard their QoL by making healthy lifestyle choices and being actively engaged in their health care. However, in the emphasis on promoting patient engagement to enhance patients’ QoL, there is no consensus regarding the relationship between QOL and patient engagement, resulting in a lack of shared guidelines among clinicians on interventions. Furthermore, no studies have provided an in-depth exploration of the perspective of patients with chronic conditions who are engaged in their health care and their requirements to achieve an improved QoL. Given this theoretical gap, the present study attempted to explore the patient engagement experience and its relationship with patient QoL in the context of the Italian healthcare system and in relation to different chronic diseases.


In-depth qualitative interviews on a sample of 99 patients with a wide variety of chronic conditions (heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer).


Patient engagement in health care can be defined as a context-based and cross-disease process that appears to enable patients to recover their life projectuality, which had been impaired by the onset of chronic disease. Successful patient engagement may also be related to a positive shift in the ways in which patients perceive self and life and experience empowerment to realize their life potential, thus improving quality of life. Patient engagement is a powerful concept capable of reflecting significant psychosocial changes that promote patient QoL along the care process. There appears to be theoretical and empirical justification for a broad definition of QoL.


QoL deeply depends on the patient ability to engage in their care and on the health expectations they have. We propose a model of the relation between patient engagement and patients’ trajectories in critical event responses and use it to illustrate a new perspective on QoL. This research showed the heuristic value patient engagement as a is a key concept in the promotion of a patients’ experience-sensitive QoL interventions and assessment measures.


Patient engagement Quality of life Cultural issues Qualitative research Chronic disease 


  1. 1.
    Michel, J. P., Newton, J. L., & Kirkwood, T. B. (2008). Medical challenges of improving the quality of a longer life. JAMA, 299(6), 688–690. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.6.688.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rothrock, N. E., Hays, R. D., Spritzer, K., Yount, S. E., Riley, W., & Cella, D. (2010). Relative to the general US population, chronic diseases are associated with poorer health-related quality of life as measured by the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1195–1204. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.012.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Öztürk, A., Şimşek, T. T., Yümin, E. T., Sertel, M., & Yümin, M. (2011). The relationship between physical, functional capacity and quality of life (QoL) among elderly people with a chronic disease. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 53(3), 278–283. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2010.12.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Naberan, K., Azpeitia, Á., Cantoni, J., & Miravitlles, M. (2012). Impairment of quality of life in women with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respiratory Medicine, 106(3), 367–373. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2011.09.014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Graffigna, G., Vegni, E., Barello, S., Olson, K., & Bosio, C. A. (2011). Studying the social construction of cancer-related fatigue experience: The heuristic value of Ethnoscience. Patient Education and Counseling, 82(3), 402–409. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.12.017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barello, S., Graffigna, G., Lamiani, G., Luciani, A., Vegni, E., Saita, E., et al. (2013). How patients experience and give meaning to their cancer-related fatigue? A qualitative research in the Italian context. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 1(2), 8–19. doi: 10.11114/ijsss.v1i2.44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frisch, M. B. (2014). Quality-of-life-inventory. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research, 5374–5377.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Phillips, D. (2012). Quality of life: Concept, policy and practice. Hibbard: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hibbard, J. H., & Greene, J. (2013). What the evidence shows about patient activation: Better health outcomes and care experiences; fewer data on costs. Health Affairs, 32(2), 207–214. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1061.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    National health plan 2011–2013, Italian Ministry of Health. http://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/c_17_pubblicazioni_1454_allegato.pdf. Accessed on 21 Sept 2014.
  11. 11.
    Graffigna, G., Barello, S., Wiederhold, B. K., Bosio, A. C., & Riva, G. (2013). Positive Technology as a Driver for Health Engagement. Annual Review of Cybertherapy and Telemedicine 2013, 9. (A). doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-282-0-9.
  12. 12.
    Barello, S., Graffigna, G.,Meyer, E.C. (2014) Ethics and etiquette in neonatal intensive care. A comment on the value of parents’ engagement in everyday ethics, and recommendations for further advancing the field. JAMA Pediatrics (in press).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Graffigna, G., Barello, S., & Riva, G. (2013). How to make health information technology effective: The challenge of patient engagement. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 94(10), 2034-2035. (B). doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.04.024.
  14. 14.
    Wiederhold, B. K., Riva, G., & Graffigna, G. (2013). Ensuring the best care for our increasing aging population: Health engagement and positive technology can help patients achieve a more active role in future healthcare. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(6), 411–412. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2013.1520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barello, S., Graffigna, G., & Vegni, E. (2012). Patient engagement as an emerging challenge for healthcare services: Mapping the literature. Nursing Research and Practice,. doi: 10.1155/2012/905934.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barello, S., Graffigna, G., Vegni, E., Savarese, M., Lombardi, F., & Bosio, A. C. (2014). Engage me in taking care of my heart”: A grounded theory study on patient–cardiologist relationship in the hospital management of heart failure BMJ Open (in press).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Graffigna, G., Barello, S., Libreri, C., & Bosio, C. A. (2014). How to engage type-2 diabetic patients in their own health management: implications for clinical practice. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 648.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barello, S., Graffigna, G., Savarese, M., & Bosio, A. C. (2014). Engaging patients in health management: Towards a preliminary theoretical conceptualization. Psicologia della Salute (in press).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Graffigna, G., Barello, S., Triberti, S., Wiederhold, B. K., Bosio, A. C., Riva, G. (2014). Enabling eHealth as a pathway for patient engagement: A toolkit for medical practice. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking (submitted).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wagner, E. H., Austin, B. T., Davis, C., Hindmarsh, M., Schaefer, J., & Bonomi, A. (2001). Improving chronic illness care: Translating evidence into action. Health Affairs (Millwood), 20, 64–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bodenheimer, T., Wagner, E. H., & Grumbach, K. (2002). Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness: The chronic care model, Part 2. JAMA, 288, 1909–1914. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.15.1909.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. London: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gibbs, G. R. (2002). Qualitative data analysis: Explorations with NVivo. Open University.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Davies, D., & Dodd, J. (2002). Qualitative research and the question of rigor. Qualitative Health Research, 12(2), 279–289. doi: 10.1177/104973230201200211.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Carr, A. J., Gibson, B., & Robinson, P. G. (2001). Is quality of life determined by expectations or experience? British Medical Journal, 322(7296), 1240–1243.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 257. doi: 10.1037/a0018301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Theofilou, P. (2012). Health-related quality of life and illness perceptions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Journal of Pulmonary & Respiratory Medicine. doi: 10.4172/2161-105X.1000e103.
  29. 29.
    Bury, M., & Gabe, J. (Eds.). (2013). The sociology of health and illness: A reader. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stephens, C. (2011). Narrative analysis in health psychology research: Personal, dialogical and social stories of health. Health Psychology Review, 5(1), 62–78. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.543385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ahmed, S., Mayo, N. E., Corbiere, M., Wood-Dauphinee, S., Hanley, J., & Cohen, R. (2005). Change in quality of life of people with stroke over time: true change or response shift? Quality of Life Research, 14, 611–627.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schwartz, C. E., Sprangers, M. A. G., Carey, A., & Reed, G. (2004). Exploring response shift in longitudinal data. Psychology & Health, 19, 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sprangers, M. A. G., van Dam, F. S. A. M., Broersen, J., et al. (1999). Revealing response shift in longitudinal research on fatigue. The use of the thentest approach. Acta Oncologica, 38, 709–718.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schwartz, C. E., & Rapkin, B. D. (2004). Reconsidering the psychometrics of quality of life assessment in light of response shift and appraisal. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2(1), 16.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rapkin, B. D., & Schwartz, C. E. (2004). Toward a theoretical model of quality-of-life appraisal: Implications of findings from studies of response shift. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2(1), 14.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schwartz, C. E., Bode, R., Repucci, N., Becker, J., Sprangers, M. A., & Fayers, P. M. (2006). The clinical significance of adaptation to changing health: A meta-analysis of response shift. Quality of Life Research, 15(9), 1533–1550.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sharpe, L., Butow, P., Smith, C., McConnell, D., & Clarke, S. (2005). Changes in quality of life in patients with advanced cancer: evidence of response shift and response restriction. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 58(6), 497–504.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    WHOQOL group. (1995). The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Social Science and Medicine, 41(10), 1403–1409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PsychologyUniversità Cattolica del Sacro CuoreMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations