Discussion and Conclusion

  • Marie-Pascale PomeyEmail author
Part of the Organizational Behaviour in Healthcare book series (OBHC)


Through seven different health systems and the experience of EURORDIS, we were able to highlight that patient engagement is a movement which is increasingly embedded in the DNA of health systems at clinical, organizational or strategic levels. Viewed by some as a fad, this social innovation is likely to continue and lead us to completely rethink the way our health systems operate.

Indeed, by reading these different case stories, we saw that each country has taken advantage of particular windows of opportunity, anchored in health systems with specific values, social norms, laws and regulations, leading to different and original ways of conceiving patient integration. This has also led to occasional differences in vocabulary.


Digital health care Artificial Intelligence Connected objects Intelligent electronic health records Interactive platforms Ethic issues Vulnerable populations Literacy 


  1. Abelson, J., K. Li, G. Wilson, K. Shields, C. Schneider, and S. Boesveld. 2016. Supporting quality public and patient engagement in health system organizations: Development and usability testing of the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy 19 (4): 817–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barr, P.J., I. Scholl, P. Bravo, M.J. Faber, G. Elwyn, and M. McAllister. 2015. Assessment of patient empowerment—A systematic review of measures. PLoS One 10 (5): e0126553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boivin, A. 2019. From craft to reflective art and science; comment on “metrics and evaluation tools for patient engagement in healthcare organization- and system-level decision-making: A systematic review”. International Journal of Health Policy and Management 8 (2): 124–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boudier, F., F. Bensebaa, and A. Jablanczy. 2012. L’émergence du patient-expert: une perturbation innovante. Innovations 39 (3): 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brett, J., S. Staniszewska, C. Mockford, S. Herron-Marx, J. Hughes, C. Tysall, and R. Suleman. 2014. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient 7 (4): 387–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Centre de pédagogie appliquée aux sciences de la santé. 2013. Guide d’implantation du partenariat de soins et de services, vers une collaboration optimale entre intervenants et avec le patient. Montréal, QC: CPASS, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
  7. Cornman, D., and C. White. 2017. Discerning the perception and impact of patients involved in evidence-based practice center key informant interviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fønhus, M.S., T.K. Dalsbø, M. Johansen, A. Fretheim, H. Skirbekk, and S.A. Flottorp. 2018. Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 11 (9).
  9. Fredriksson, M., M. Eriksson, and J.Q. Tritter. 2018. Involvement that makes an impact on healthcare: Perceptions of the Swedish public. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 46 (4): 471–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mockford, C., S. Staniszewska, F. Griffiths, and S. Herron-Marx. 2012. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: A systematic review. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 24 (1): 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pare, G., C. Leaver, and C. Bourget. 2018. Diffusion of the digital health self-tracking movement in Canada: Results of a national survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research 20 (5): e177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Phillips, N.M., M. Street, and E. Haesler. 2015. A systematic review of reliable and valid tools for the measurement of patient participation in healthcare. BMJ Quality & Safety 25 (2): 110–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pomey, M.-P., and V. Ghadi. 2009. La participation des usagers au fonctionnement des établissements de santé: une dynamique encore à construire. Santé, Société et Solidarité 2: 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Richards, T., V.M. Montori, F. Godlee, P. Lapsley, and D. Paul. 2013. Let the patient revolution begin. BMJ 346: f2614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rosener, J.B. 1981. User-oriented evaluation: A new way to view citizen participation. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 17 (4): 583–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sanders, A.R.J., I. van Weeghel, M. Vogelaar, W. Verheul, R.H.M. Pieters, N.J. de Wit, and J.M. Bensing. 2013. Effects of improved patient participation in primary care on health-related outcomes: A systematic review. Family Practice 30 (4): 365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sharma, A.E., M. Knox, V.L. Mleczko, and J.N. Olayiwola. 2017. The impact of patient advisors on healthcare outcomes: A systematic review. BMC Health Services Research 17 (1): 693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Staniszewska, S., S. Herron-Marx, and C. Mockford. 2008. Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement: The need for an evidence base. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 20 (6): 373–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Topol, E. 2016. The Patient Will See You Now: The Future of Medicine is in Your Hands. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Vincent, D., and B. Antoine. 2018. A Canadian take on the international patient engagement revolution. Healthcare Quarterly 21 (Special Issue): 1–6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public HealthUniversity of MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations