41% of Adults are “Activated Patients”Comments on: --

By: Pandas, Lobsters, and Health Care | e-Patients.net

Pandas, Lobsters, and Health Care | e-Patients.net — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:52:30 +0000

[...] of diagnosis). That echoes the findings of the Center for Studying Health System Change: 41% of U.S. adults are “activated patients” (the rest tend to be passive and may lack the confidence to play an active role in their health). [...]

By: SusannahFox

SusannahFox — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:46:16 +0000

@ShimCode Cancer patients are the most likely group to be "activated" (adopt healthy behav, confident) http://bit.ly/8zkHBL = fired up

By: The Pew Internet/Health FAQ | e-Patients.net

The Pew Internet/Health FAQ | e-Patients.net — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:52:14 +0000

[...] The Center for Studying Health System Change’s study measuring “patient activation” is one indicator. The central role of family caregivers is not addressed in the study, however. See the comments on this post, for example: 41% of Adults are “Activated Patients” [...]

By: In the Spin: Death by Referral | e-Patients.net

In the Spin: Death by Referral | e-Patients.net — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:34:33 +0000

[...] an “activated patient,” I hit the Internet. Sheryl Crow had ignored a similar recommendation, catching her [...]

By: Susan Willard

Susan Willard — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:35:39 +0000

Susannah,

Yes, I understand this concept is implicit. I didn’t express myself very well I’m afraid. Not all organizations make this inclusion in their audience assumptions.

My comment reflected on whether the Center made that same population assumption (as does e-patients) in drawing conclusions about their chronically-ill participants. Did the Study map the actual role of Caregivers/Advocates in their chronically-ill study population? Not sure, simply because I need to sit down and review the methodolgy, and results more throughly.

If not, we should think about better understanding the underlying behaviors of this group. How should we target chronically-ill patients, and their various subset groups in terms of awareness, and education, tools, materials? Does one overtly cite patients, and caregivers?

This is one of the reasons that large corporations, while investing heavily in Prevention Programs, are also measuring “presenteeism” in their organization year-on-year, and citing Caregiver populations, as a sizeable expense. They acknowledge that Caregiving at 40 million + in 2005, will at least double, if not more by 2010. And with a loss of $2,000/year in productivity, that cost will increase exponentially without the right support.

Just a thought about targeting the the value of e-health to patient/caregiver populations involved the management of chronic illness.

By: Susannah Fox

Susannah Fox — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:28:02 +0000

Thanks, Susan! What you write goes to the heart of why “participatory medicine” is becoming the key phrase, rather than “e-patients.” The idea is that everyone — the patient, the home caregivers, the professional caregivers, everyone — can be activated, informed, and engaged.

By: Gilles Frydman

Gilles Frydman — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:27:28 +0000

Susan,
when we talk of e-patients we always include caregivers in the definition. For all of us who write in this blog there is no difference between the activated patient and activated caregiver(s). Just look at Chris Gray and you’ll see that empowered patients and caregivers are one and the same as far as understanding what needs to be done to get a better system.

By: Susan Willard

Susan Willard — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:19:18 +0000

Susannah,

Thank you for sharing this excellent data.

Another aspect to consider around measuring patient proactivity, and involvement has to do with the role, and or level of caregiver support, if any. It’s a good data point to include in future studies.

It’s secondary for certain, but many friends or family surrounding the chronically-ill, do not know the need for their potential involvement in managing their loved one’s health care experience – until much later in the process, when things go badly, or the patient is overwhelmed in the process.

So, as a part of our Patient Education approaches, should we not flag the potential role of Caregiving? Hence the need to educate Caregiver stakeholders in the e-process, not just patients?