Table 4.
Rating results
| Patient engagement scenarios | Feasibility | Patient input | Physician/staff acceptance | Patient‐centredness | Health‐care quality | Overall desirability | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Decision | Median | Decision | Median | Decision | Median | Decision | Median | Decision | Median | Decision | |
| S1. Local level: consultation | 8 | + | 7 | + | 6 | ± | 7 | + | 6 | ± | 9 | + |
| S2. Local level: implementation advisor | 7 | + | 7 | + | 6 | ± | 7.5 | + | 6 | ± | 8 | + |
| S3. Local level: equal stakeholder | 6 | ± | 6 | ± | 5 | ± | 8 | + | 7 | + | 7 | + |
| S4. Local level: lead stakeholder | 5 | ± | 5 | ± | 4 | ± | 6 | ± | 5 | ± | 5 | ± |
| S5. Regional level: Consultation | 7 | + | 6 | ± | 5.5 | ± | 7 | + | 6 | ± | 7 | + |
| S6. Regional level: implementation advisor | 6 | ± | 6 | ± | 6 | ± | 7 | + | 7 | + | 7 | + |
| S7. Regional level: equal stakeholder | 5 | ± | 5 | ± | 5 | ± | 6 | ± | 5.5 | ± | 6 | ± |
| S8. Regional level: lead stakeholder | 4 | ± | 5 | ± | 3 | − | 5 | ± | 4.5 | ± | 5 | ± |
+: A positive decision, meaning that panellists considered a given patient engagement scenario to be feasible, desirable, etc. Shaded cells denote scenarios with positive decisions (a median score of 7–9, without disagreement).
±: An uncertain decision without disagreement, meaning that panellists were uncertain (a median score of 4–6, without disagreement) about the feasibility, desirability, etc, of a given patient engagement scenario.
−: A negative decision, meaning that panellists considered a given patient engagement scenario to be unfeasible, undesirable, etc (a median score of 1–3, without disagreement).