• Marie-Pascale PomeyEmail author
  • Nathalie Clavel
  • Jean-Louis Denis
Part of the Organizational Behaviour in Healthcare book series (OBHC)


This chapter presents the fact that over the last 20 years, paternalistic approaches of health care have gradually given way to patient-oriented approaches that consider differences, values and experiences of patient. Around the world, healthcare organizations, institutions and universities are doubling their efforts to involve patients and make their participation increasingly active, using different modalities of engagement and various means of motivation. In this context, the objectives of this monograph are to show if the ongoing patient revolution, based on patient knowledge, has contributed to transform, improve or innovate the ways in which care services are organized and delivered as well as the culture and practices of healthcare professionals regarding direct patient care.


Patient revolution Breakthrough innovation Patient knowledge 


  1. Beaglehole, R., R. Bonita, R. Horton, C. Adams, G. Alleyne, P. Asaria, V. Baugh, H. Bekedam, N. Billo, S. Casswell, M. Cecchini, R. Colagiuri, S. Colagiuri, T. Collins, S. Ebrahim, M. Engelgau, G. Galea, T. Gaziano, R. Geneau, A. Haines, J. Hospedales, P. Jha, A. Keeling, S. Leeder, P. Lincoln, M. McKee, J. Mackay, R. Magnusson, R. Moodie, M. Mwatsama, S. Nishtar, B. Norrving, D. Patterson, P. Piot, J. Ralston, M. Rani, K.S. Reddy, F. Sassi, N. Sheron, D. Stuckler, I. Suh, J. Torode, C. Varghese, and J. Watt. 2011. Priority actions for the non-communicable disease crisis. Lancet 377 (9775): 1438–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carman, K.L., P. Dardess, M. Maurer, S. Sofaer, K. Adams, C. Bechtel, and J. Sweeney. 2013. Patient and family engagement: A framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Affairs 32 (2): 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke, J.L., S. Bourn, A. Skoufalos, E.H. Beck, and D.J. Castillo. 2017. An innovative approach to health care delivery for patients with chronic conditions. Population Health Management 20 (1): 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coulter, A. 2012. Patient engagement—What works? The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management 35 (2): 80–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dentzer, S. 2013. Rx for the ‘blockbuster drug’ of patient engagement. Health Affairs (Millwood) 32 (2): 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flora, L. 2008. Le patient formateur auprès des étudiants en médecine: De l’approche historique, la contextualisation, à l’intervention socioéducative. Master Université Vincennes Saint-Denis Paris 8.Google Scholar
  7. Foster, G., S.J. Taylor, S.E. Eldridge, J. Ramsay, and C.J. Griffiths. 2007. Self-management education programmes by lay leaders for people with chronic conditions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 4: Cd005108.Google Scholar
  8. Grady, P.A., and L.L. Gough. 2014. Self-management: A comprehensive approach to management of chronic conditions. American Journal of Public Health 104 (8): e25–e31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. IHI. 2018. The IHI Triple Aim. Accessed 23 Nov 2018.
  10. Jeon, Y.H., B. Essue, S. Jan, R. Wells, and J.A. Whitworth. 2009. Economic hardship associated with managing chronic illness: A qualitative inquiry. BMC Health Services Research 9: 182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Karazivan, P., V. Dumez, L. Flora, M.-P. Pomey, C. Del Grande, D.P. Ghadiri, N. Fernandez, E. Jouet, O. Las Vergnas, and P. Lebel. 2015. The patient-as-partner approach in health care: A conceptual framework for a necessary transition. Academic Medicine 90 (4): 437–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Legare, F., and H.O. Witteman. 2013. Shared decision making: Examining key elements and barriers to adoption into routine clinical practice. Health Affairs (Millwood) 32 (2): 276–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux. 2017. Plan stratégique du ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux 2015–2020. Québec MSSS, Gouvernement du Québec 33p.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 2018. Cadre de référence relatif aux comités des usagers et aux comités de résidents. Québec MSSS, Gouvernement du Québec.Google Scholar
  15. OECD. 2013. Panorama de la santé 2013. Les indicateurs de l’OCDE. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pomey, M., L. Flora, P. Karazivan, V. Dumez, P. Lebel, M. Vanier, B. Debarges, N. Clavel, and E. Jouet. 2015b. The Montreal model: The challenges of a partnership relationship between patients and healthcare professionals. Santé Publique 27 (1 Suppl): S41–S50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Richards, T., V.M. Montori, F. Godlee, P. Lapsley, and D. Paul. 2013. Let the patient revolution begin. BMJ 346: f2614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sikka, R., J.M. Morath, and L. Leape. 2015. The quadruple aim: Care, health, cost and meaning in work. BMJ Quality & Safety 24 (10): 608–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stewart, M., J.B. Brown, A. Donner, I.R. McWhinney, J. Oates, W.W. Weston, and J. Jordan. 2000. The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. The Journal of Family Practice 49 (9): 796–804.Google Scholar
  20. Tinetti, M.E., T.R. Fried, and C.M. Boyd. 2012. Designing health care for the most common chronic condition—Multimorbidity. JAMA 307 (23): 2493–2494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie-Pascale Pomey
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nathalie Clavel
    • 1
  • Jean-Louis Denis
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Public HealthUniversity of MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations