Claims

Only 5% of included papers reported engaging patients in educational design and only 7% reported a patient-centred theoretical perspective

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? Patient engagement in the design of communication skills education was rare: only 5% of papers reported engaging patients as stakeholders, and only 7% reported patient-centred care as an underpinning theoretical perspective. → Denniston C 2017

Evidence

Denniston C 2017

Denniston C, Molloy E, Nestel D, Woodward-Kron R, Keating JL. (2017). Learning outcomes for communication skills across the health professions: a systematic literature review and qualitative synthesis. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014570

q3 · i? · qualitative · r3

Descriptive analysis of the 168 included papers in Stage 1 of the review. The article reports "only 5% of papers reported engaging patients in any aspect of educational design" and 7% reporting patient-centred care as theoretical perspective.

"only 5% of papers reported engaging patients in any aspect of educational design. Although valued in health professions education, patient engagement is not well defined"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.