Skip to main content

Table 2 Modal values of collapsed categories, divided into patient engagement levels [7]

From: Organisation, influence, and impact of patient advisory boards in rehabilitation institutions—an explorative cross-sectional study

 

Barrier PE-level

Intermediate PE-level

Facilitating PE-level

 

Domain/ Itema,b

Strongly disagree/disagree

n (%)

Neither agree nor disagree

n (%)

Agree/strongly agree

n (%)

Don’t know

n (%)

Policies and practices c

 6

Explicit strategy for PEd

4 (8)

5 (11)

37 (79)

1 (2)

 7

Explicit strategies for recruiting participants

5 (11)

13 (28)

28 (59)

1 (2)

 8

Identified resources for PE

5 (11)

9 (19)

20 (42)

13 (28)

 9

Adequate PE resources

10 (21)

9 (19)

18 (39)

10 (21)

 10

Prepares reports of PE

9 (19)

12 (26)

22 (46)

4 (9)

 

Total n (%)

33 (14)

48 (20)

125 (53)

29 (13)

Participatory culture e, f

 12

Commitment to PE in key organisational documents

2 (4)

6 (13)

35 (74)

4 (9)

 13

Commitment to PE through structure

8 (17)

11 (23)

25 (53)

3 (7)

 15

Clear responsibilities for PABg

6 (13)

8 (17)

31 (66)

2 (4)

 16

Responsibilities in job descriptions of relevant staff

4 (9)

9 (19)

16 (34)

18 (38)

 17

Comprehensive PE training/materials to support staff

11 (23)

10 (21)

14 (30)

12 (26)

 18

Adequate PE training

7 (15)

13 (28)

27 (57)

0 (0)

 19

Leaders show commitment to using PE input

3 (7)

10 (21)

33 (70)

1 (2)

 20

Reports of contribution from PE shared with participants

5 (11)

17 (36)

18 (38)

7 (15)

 

Total n (%)

46 (12)

84 (22)

199 (53)

47 (13)

Influence and impacth

Never

Rarely/some of the time

All of the time

Don’t know

 22

PE contributions are identifiable

0 (0)

28 (60)

11 (23)

8 (17)

 23

Leaders use input from PAB

0 (0)

25 (53)

13 (28)

9 (19)

 24

Patient representatives are equal to employees in meetings

4 (9)

11 (23)

29 (62)

3 (6)

 25

PAB representatives have voting rights in meetings with employees

7 (15)

10 (21)

13 (28)

17 (36)

 26

Instances where PAB input had an influence

1 (2)

30 (64)

4 (9)

12 (25)

 27

Instances where PAB input influenced management decisions

1 (2)

21 (45)

2 (4)

23 (49)

 

Total n (%)

13 (5)

125 (45)

72 (25)

72 (25)

Collaboration and common purpose

Strongly disagree/disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Agree/strongly agree

Don’t know

 29

PE led to collaboration with other groups

5 (11)

10 (21)

19 (40)

13 (28)

 30

PE led to identifying shared goals with other organisations

1 (2)

16 (34)

14 (30)

16 (34)

 

Total n (%)

6 (6)

26 (28)

33 (35)

29 (31)

Final thoughts

Strongly disagree/disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Agree/ strongly agree

 

 32

Appropriate level of engagement activity

9 (19)

12 (26)

26 (55)

 

 33

Appropriate level of resources to PE activity

14 (30)

10 (21)

23 (49)

 

 34

The organisation is strengthened as a result of PE

1 (2)

6 (13)

40 (85)

 
 

Total n (%)

24 (17)

28 (20)

89 (63)

 
  1. aThe percentages are rounded up or down to meet a total of 100
  2. bModal values are presented in bold
  3. cQuestion numbers 11, 21, 28, 31, and 35 are free text fields
  4. dPE Patient engagement
  5. eItems 6–10, 12–13, 15- 20, 29–30 and 32–34 valued 1–5: strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree, Items 32–34 did not have a don’t know category
  6. fItem 14: valued 1–3: yes, no, don’t know, and was not collapsed and not presented in the table
  7. gPAB Patient advisory board
  8. hItems 22–27 valued 1–4: never, rarely, some of the time, all of the time and don’t know
Back to article page

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us