Skip to main content

Let’s Get Engaged: On the Evidence of Patient Engagement Tools and Their Integration in Patient Pathways

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Innovation Through Information Systems (WI 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation ((LNISO,volume 46))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1575 Accesses

Abstract

Patient pathways are a means to structure the care process for patients with complex and long-term diseases in integrated care networks. Simultaneously, they have a stronger emphasis on the patient perspective and engagement than related pathway concepts. Still, there are no common mechanisms for patient engagement concepts in patient pathway models. This paper therefore explores the state-of-the-art of patient engagement tools as well as evidence on their effectivity and feasibility, picking the Option Grid, the Patient Diary, and the Question Prompt Sheet (QPS) as representative examples. Based on this, we propose recommendations for the representation of such tools in patient pathway models and demonstrate them with the application of the QPS in a colorectal cancer patient pathway. To conclude, the evidence on patient engagement tools is still diverse but promising. Anchoring successful tools in patient pathways holds the potential to support their broader application and enhance individualized care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Icon made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com.

  2. 2.

    Icons made by Freepik and Becris from www.flaticon.com.

  3. 3.

    URL: https://www.ipaac.eu/ (accessed 25.08.2020).

References

  1. Vanhaecht, K.: The Impact of Clinical Pathways on the Organization of Care Processes. Technical Report, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Küttner, T., Roeder, N.: Klinische Behandlungspfade. Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag, Köln (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gand, K., Schlieter, H.: Personalisation and Dynamisation of Care Pathways – Foundations and Conceptual Considerations. Research-in-Progress Report 68 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  4. The Value Collaborative: Putting Patients at the Center of the Clinical Pathway Debate. https://catalyst.phrma.org/putting-patients-at-the-center-of-the-clinical-pathways-debate. Accessed 10 Nov 2020

  5. Richter, P., Schlieter, H.: Understanding patient pathways in the context of integrated health care services - implications from a scoping review. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference of Wirtschaftsinformatik (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Higgins, T., Larson, E., Schnall, R.: Unravelling the meaning of patient engagement. A concept analysis. Patient Educ. Counselling 100, 30–36 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cerezo, P., Udina, J., Eulália, P., et al.: Concepts and measures of patient empowerment: a comprehensive review. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP 50, 0667 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Doherr, H., Christalle, E., Kriston, L., et al.: Use of the 9-item shared decision making questionnaire in intervention studies: a systematic review. Plos One 12, 1–16 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Keddem, S., Agha, A., Long, J., et al.: Creating a toolkit to reduce disparities in patient engagement. Med. Care 55, 59–69 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. De Santis, M., Hervas, C., Weinman, C., et al.: Patient Empowerment. National Center for Rare Diseases (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Walker, D., Sieck, C., Menser, T., et al.: Information technology to support patient engagement: where do we stand and where can we go? JAMA 24, 1088–1094 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rowley, J., Slack, F.: Conducting a literature review. Manag. Res. News 27, 31–39 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Howick, J., Chalmers, I., Glasziou, P., et al.: The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2. https://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653. Accessed 09 Oct 2020

  14. Nijhuis, F., Elwyn, G., Bloem, B., et al.: Improving SDM in advanced Parkinsons disease: protocol of a mixed methods feasibility study. Pilot Feasbility Stud. 4, 1–8 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Scalia, P., Elwyn, G., Barr, P., et al.: Exploring the Use of option grid patient decision aids in a sample of clinics in Poland. ZEFQ 134, 1–8 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Elwyn, G., Frosch, D., Kobrin, S.: Implementing shared-decision making: consider all the consequences. Implement. Sci. 11, 1–10 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Elwyn, G., Rasmussen, J., Kinsey, K., et al.: On a learning curve for shared-decision making: interviews with clinicians using the knee osteoarthritis option grid. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 24, 56–64 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kinsey, K., Firth, J., Elwyn, G., et al.: Patients views on the use of an option grid for knee osteoarthritis in physiotherapy clinical encounters: an interview study. Health Expect. 20, 1302–1310 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith, S., Alvand, A., Locock, L., et al.: Partial or total knee replacement? Identifying patients information needs on knee replacement surgery: a qualitative study to inform a decision aid. Qual. Life Res. 29, 999–1011 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hahlweg, P., Witzel, I., Müller, V.: Adaptation and qualitative evaluation of decision aids in breast cancer care. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 299, 1141–1149 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Alam, S., Elwyn, G., Percac-Lima, S., et al.: Assessing the acceptability and feasibility of encounter decision aids for early stage breast cancer targeted at underserved patients. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 16, 147 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zisman-Ilani, J., Shern, D., Deegan, P., et al.: Continue, adjust, or stop antipsychotic medication: developing and user testing an encounter decision aid for people with first-episode and long-term psychosis. BMC Psychiatry 18, 142 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Greenhalgh, T.: Option grids: an idea whose time has come? The British journal of general practice. J. R. Coll. Gen. Pract. 63, 147 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wright, S., Walsh, H., Ingley, K., et al.: Uptake of self-management strategies in a heart failure management programme. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 5, 371–380 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cherenack, E., Wilson, P., Kreuzman, A., et al.: HIV/AIDS interventions: the feasibility and acceptability of using technology based daily diaries with HIV-infected young men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 20, 1744–1753 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Park, L., Dracup, K., Whooley, M. et al.: Symptom diary use and improved survival for patient with heart failure. Circulation. Heart Failure 10 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hodge, B.: The use of symptom diaries in outpatient care. FPM J. 20, 24–28 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Himes, B., Weitzman, E.: Innovations in health information technologies for chronic pulmonary diseases. Respir. Res. 17, 1–7 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Schmidt, M., Eckardt, R., Scholtz, K., et al.: Patient empowerment improved perioperative quality of care in cancer patients aged 65 years – A randomized controlled trial. PloS One 10, e0137824 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ullman, A., Aitken, L., Rattray, J., et al.: Diaries for recovery from critical illness. In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 4 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Moloczij, N., Krishnasamy, M., Butow, P. et al.: Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of audio-recordings and question prompt lists in cancer care consultations: a qualitative study. Patient Educ. Counselling 6, 1083 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Stacey, D., Samant, R., Bennett, C.: Decision making in oncology: a review of patient decision aids to support patient participation. ACS J. 58, 293–304 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Arthur, J., Yennu, S., Zapata, K., et al.: Perception of helpfulness of a QPS among cancer patients attending outpatient palliative care. JPSM J. 53, 124–130 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Brown, R., Butow, P., Dunn, S., et al.: Promoting patient participation and shortening cancer consultation: a randomised trial. Br. J. Cancer 85, 1273–1279 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Brown, R., Butow, P., Boyer, M., et al.: Promoting patient participation in the cancer consultation: evaluation of a prompt sheet and coaching in question-asking. Br. J. Cancer 80, 242–248 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Butow, P., Dunn, S., Tattersall, M., et al.: Patient participation in the cancer consultation: evaluation of a QPS. Ann. Oncol. ESMO Open 5, 199–204 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Streufert, B., Reed, S., Orlando, L., et al.: Understanding preferences for treatment after hypothetical fit-time anterior shoulder dislocation. AOSSM 5, 2325 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Dunlea, R., Lenert, L.: Understanding patients’ preferences for referrals to specialists for an asymptomatic condition. SAGE J. 35, 691–702 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hess, L., Litwiller, A., Byron, J., et al.: Preference elicitation tool for abnormal uterine bleeding treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Patient 8, 217–227 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Chesney, T., Deveon, K.: Training surgical residents to use a framework to promote shared decision-making for patients with poor prognosis experiencing surgical emergencies. Can. J. Surg. 61, 114–120 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Taylor, L., Nabozny, M., Steffens, N., et al.: A framework to improve surgeon comm. in high-stakes surgical decisions: best case/worst case. JAMA Surg. 152, 531–538 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Giguere, A., Labrecque, M., Haynes, B.: Evidence summaries to prepare clinicians for shared decision-making with patients. In: Implementation Science (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lastinger, A., Gomez, K., Manegold, E., et al.: Use of a patient empowerment tool for hand hygiene. Am. J. Infect. Control (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Dendere, R., Slade, C., Burton-Jones, A., et al.: Patient portals facilitating engagement with inpatient electronic medical records: a systematic review. JMIR 21, e12779 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ammenwerth, E., Schnell-Inderst, P., Hoerbst, A.: The impact of electronic patient portals on patient care: a systematic review of controlled trials. JMIR 14, e162 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Fiks, A., Mayne, S., Karavite, D., et al.: Parent-reported outcomes of a shared decision-making portal in asthma: a practice-based RCT. Pediatrics 135, e965–e973 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Scalia, P., O’Malley, J., Durnd, M., et al.: Presenting time-based risks of stroke and death for patients facing carotid stenosis treatment options: patients prefer pie charts over icon arrays. Patient Educ. Counselling 102, 1939 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hoffmann, J., Wilkes, M., Day, F.: The roulette wheel: an aid to informed decision making. PLoS Med. 3, e137 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Scheuerlein, H., Rauchfuss, F., Dittmar, Y., et al.: New methods for clinical pathways-BPMN and t.BPM. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 397, 755–761 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Zerbato, F., Oliboni, B., Combi, C., et al.: BPMN-Based representation and comparison of clinical pathways for catheter-related bloodstream infections. In: International Conference on Healthcare Informatics, pp. 346–355 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Braun, R., Schlieter, H., Burwitz, M., et al.: BPMN4CP revised - Extending BPMN for multi-perspective modeling of clinical pathways. In: Proceedings of the 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 3249–3258 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  52. National Health Service England: When and where is shared decision making appropriate? https://www.england.nhs.uk/shared-decision-making/when-and-where-is-shared-decision-making-appropriate/. Accessed 10 Nov 2020

  53. Fredriksson, M., Eriksson, M., Tritter, J.: Who wants to be involved in health care decisions? Comparing preferences for individual and collective involvement in England and Sweden. BMC Public Health 18, 18 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Lambert, K., Lau, T., Davidson, S., et al.: Development and results on the feasibility of a renal diet specific QPS for use in nephrology clinics. BMC Neph. 20, 48 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article was partly funded by the European Union’s Health Programme (2014–2020).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peggy Richter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Hickmann, E., Richter, P., Schlieter, H. (2021). Let’s Get Engaged: On the Evidence of Patient Engagement Tools and Their Integration in Patient Pathways. In: Ahlemann, F., Schütte, R., Stieglitz, S. (eds) Innovation Through Information Systems. WI 2021. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation, vol 46. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86790-4_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86790-4_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-86789-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-86790-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics