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