Table 8 PPEET results: Facilitators to patient engagement (PE)
From: Lessons learned in measuring patient engagement in a Canada-wide childhood disability network
Theme n = number of utterances | Subtheme n = number of utterances % of Theme | Sub-subtheme n = number of utterances % of Sub-subtheme | Description | PAG utterances n (%) | RES utterances n (%) | COMM utterances n (%) | Total utterances n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Facilitators N = 40 | Communication strategies N = 15 (37.5) | Adequate preparation for meetings N = 11 (73.3) | Refers to the preparation put in advance from COMM members to ensure meetings are conducted smoothly and allowing all PAGs and COMMs to be heard if they want to comment | 0 | 5 | 6 | 11 |
Total | 0 (0.0) | 5 (45.5) | 6 (54.5) | 11 (100.0) | |||
Consistent and clear communication N = 1 (6.7) | Refers to the quality of information being shared | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||
Total | 1 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (100.0) | |||
F2F meetings N = 1 (6.7) | Refers to the benefits the team felt by having F2F meetings | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||
Total | 1 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (100.0) | |||
Pauses in meetings for questions, encouragement for questions N = 1 (6.7) | Refers to how meetings are conducted, and how members feel encouraged to ask questions | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
Total | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (100.0) | 1 (100.0) | |||
Smaller group meetings for better collaborations N = 1 (6.7) | Refers to where the best collaboration was seen | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||
Total | 1 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (100.0) | |||
Improved supports to PP N = 2 (5.0) | Refers to how Child Bright has made changes to ensure PP’s are supported to participate | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
Total | 0 (0.0) | 2 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (100.0) | |||
Methods of engagement adjusted based on feedback N = 2 (5.0) | Refers to RES team making adjustments on a regular basis based on interactions with PAGs to improve support for PPs | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
Total | 0 (0.0) | 2 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (100.0) | |||
Opinions being welcomed, acknowledged, heard, and respected N = 11 (27.5) | Refers to the positive ways COM and PAG’s feel when they speak up in meetings with RES to voice their opinions or concerns | 3 | 2 | 6 | 11 | ||
Total | 3 (27.3) | 2 (18.2) | 6 (54.5) | 11 (100.0) | |||
PIs being responsive to requests from PP N = 1 (2.5) | Refers to being responsive | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
Total | 0 (0.0) | 1 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (100.0) | |||
PP active in KT N = 1 (2.5) | Refers to how PP’s participate in KT (presentations) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
Total | 0 (0.0) | 1 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (100.0) | |||
PP feeling supported N = 2 (5.0) | Refers to feeling supported to share their perspectives and their thoughts regarding project progress | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | ||
Total | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (100.0) | 2 (100.0) | |||
PP involved early in the project N = 1 (2.5) | Refers to the timeline at which PP’s got involved and knowing their value | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
Total | 0 (0.0) | 1 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (100.0) | |||
Qualities of PP N = 4 (10.0) | Refers to the team, how they are engaged, thoughtful, invested, and loyal to the projects | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 | ||
Total | 2 (50.0) | 2 (50.0) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (100.0) | |||
Researchers and PP strong partnership and understanding, mutual goals N = 1 (2.5) | Refers to the mutual partnership, valuing how one is learning from the other to make the project as strong as possible | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
Total | 0 (0.0) | 1 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (100.0) | |||
Grand total | 8 (20.0) | 17 (42.5) | 15 (37.5) | 40 (100.0) |