Article Text

Download PDFPDF

How do healthcare professionals working in accountable care organisations understand patient activation and engagement? Qualitative interviews across two time points
  1. Manish K Mishra1,2,
  2. Catherine H Saunders1,
  3. Hector P Rodriguez3,
  4. Stephen M Shortell3,
  5. Elliott Fisher1,2,
  6. Glyn Elwyn1,2
  1. 1 The Dartmouth Institute of Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA
  2. 2 Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA
  3. 3 Berkeley School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Glyn Elwyn; glynelwyn{at}


Objective If patient engagement is the new ‘blockbuster drug’ why are we not seeing spectacular effects? Studies have shown that activated patients have improved health outcomes, and patient engagement has become an integral component of value-based payment and delivery models, including accountable care organisations (ACO). Yet the extent to which clinicians and managers at ACOs understand and reliably execute patient engagement in clinical encounters remains unknown. We assessed the use and understanding of patient engagement approaches among frontline clinicians and managers at ACO-affiliated practices.

Design Qualitative study; 103 in-depth, semi-structured interviews.

Participants Sixty clinicians and eight managers were interviewed at two established ACOs.

Approach We interviewed healthcare professionals about their awareness, attitudes, understanding and experiences of implementing three key approaches to patient engagement and activation: 1) goal-setting, 2) motivational interviewing and 3) shared decision making. Of the 60 clinicians, 33 were interviewed twice leading to 93 clinician interviews. Of the 8 managers, 2 were interviewed twice leading to 10 manager interviews. We used a thematic analysis approach to the data.

Key results Interviewees recognised the term ‘patient activation and engagement’ and had favourable attitudes about the utility of the associated skills. However, in-depth probing revealed that although interviewees reported that they used these patient activation and engagement approaches, they have limited understanding of these approaches.

Conclusions Without understanding the concept of patient activation and the associated approaches of shared decision making and motivational interviewing, effective implementation in routine care seems like a distant goal. Clinical teams in the ACO model would benefit from specificity defining key terms pertaining to the principles of patient activation and engagement. Measuring the degree of understanding with reward that are better-aligned for behaviour change will minimise the notion that these techniques are already being used and help fulfil the potential of patient-centred care.

  • patient activation
  • patient engagement
  • accountable care organizations

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:

View Full Text

Statistics from


  • Contributors The conception of the study and the design of the work: SMS, HPR, EF. Acquisition of data: SMS, HPR, MKM, GE, EF. Thematic analysis of data, interpretation of the data, drafting of manuscript: MKM, CHS, GE. Critical revision, editing of manuscript and contribution to intellectual content and approval of all aspects of the final manuscript: MKM, GE, CHS, SMS, HPR, EF.

  • Funding This research was supported by the Patient-Centred Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) (grant: IHS-1310-06821). The views, statements, opinions presented in this work are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), its Board of Governors, or Methodology Committee. This work was also supported in part by AHRQ’s Comparative Health System Performance Initiative under grant # 1U19HS024075, which studies how healthcare delivery systems promote evidence-based practices and patient-centred outcomes research in delivering care.

  • Competing interests GE has been a consultant to Emmi Solutions, which develops patient decision support tools; National Quality Forum on certification of decision support tools; Washington State Health Department on certification of decision support tools; PatientWisdom; SciMentum, Amsterdam and Access Community Health Network, Chicago. He has edited/published books that provide royalties on sales by the publishers: the books include SDM (Oxford University Press) and Groups (Radcliffe Press). He also initiated and leads the Option Grid patient decision aids collaborative, which produces and publishes patient knowledge tools in the form of comparison tables ( and has part ownership of the registered trademark. He owns a copyright in CollaboRATE, IntegRATE and Observer OPTION measures of SDM and care integration. These measures are freely available for use. EF reports personal fees from Christiana Care Health System, personal fees from American College of Pathologists, personal fees from Angiodynamics (for profit company), personal fees from Blue Cross, Blue Shield of LA, personal fees from National Confederation of General Insurance, Private Pension and Life, Supplementary Health and Capitalization Companies, Brazil, personal fees from Blue Cross, Blue Shield of South Carolina, personal fees from Vizient, personal fees from Signature Healthcare Foundation, grants from Commonwealth Fund, grants from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, outside the submitted work; and he is a member of the Board of Directors of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and the Fannie E Rippel Foundation.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Ethics approval This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of The University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health (UCB) and The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice (TDI).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement There are no additional data to share.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.