Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T11:36:16.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EVALUATION CRITERIA OF PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN RESOURCE ALLOCATION DECISIONS: A LITERATURE REVIEW AND QUALITATIVE STUDY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2017

Zahava R.S. Rosenberg-Yunger  and
Ahmed M. Bayoumi
Zahava R.S. Rosenberg-Yunger
Affiliation:
School of Health Services Management, Ryerson University, Ontario Pharmacists Association
Ahmed M. Bayoumi
Affiliation:
Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Division of General Internal Medicineahmed.bayoumi@utoronto.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: We developed specific evaluation criteria to assess patient and public involvement in resource allocation decisions in health care.

Methods: We reviewed the literature from health and other sectors relevant to stakeholder involvement and conducted twenty-seven key informant interviews with stakeholders knowledgeable about patient and public involvement in Canadian drug resource allocation decisions. We used an inductive qualitative thematic approach to analyze the interviews with codes and categories developed directly from individuals’ interview transcripts.

Results: Integrating respondents’ comments and the literature review, we identified nine evaluation criteria of patient and the public involvement in healthcare resource allocation decision making: clarity regarding rationale and roles of patient and public members, sufficient support, adequate representation of relevant views, fair decision-making processes, legitimacy of committee processes, adequate opportunity for participation, meaningful degree of participation, noticeable effect on decisions, and considerations of the efficiency of patient and public involvement.

Conclusions: Our results will help to develop methods to evaluate patient and public involvement in healthcare decision making.

Keywords

Resource allocationDecision makingConsumer participationPatient participationQualitative research
Type
Policies
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , 2017 , pp. 270 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1 Conklin, A, Morris, Z, Nolte, E. What is the evidence base for public involvement in health-care policy?: Results of a systematic scoping review. Health Expect. 2015;18:153-165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Mockford, C, Staniszewska, S, Griffiths, F, Herron-Marx, S. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: A systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2012;24:28-38.Google Scholar
3 Staley, K, Doherty, C. It's not evidence, it's insight: Bringing patients’ perspectives into health technology appraisal at NICE. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:4. http://researchinvolvement.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40900-016-0018-y (accessed March 29, 2017).Google Scholar
4 Dipankui, MT, Gagnon, M-P, Desmartis, M, et al. Evaluation of patient involvement in a health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31:166-170.Google Scholar
5 Berglas, S, Jutai, L, MacKean, G, Weeks, L. Patients’ perspectives can be integrated in health technology assessments: An exploratory analysis of CADTH Common Drug Review. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:21. http://researchinvolvement.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40900-016-0036-9 (accessed March 29, 2017).Google Scholar
6 Gibson, JL, Martin, DK, Singer, PA. Priority setting in hospitals: Fairness, inclusiveness, and the problem of institutional power differences. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61:2355-2362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7 Maxwell, JA. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. New York: SAGE Publications; 2013. 218 p.Google Scholar
8 QSR. NVivo 8 research software for analysis and insight. www.qsrinternational.com. 2014. (accessed March 29, 2017).Google Scholar
9 Carnes, S, Schweitzer, M, Peelle, E. Measuring the success of public participation on environmental restoration and waste management activities in the US Department of Energy. Technol Soc. 1998;20:385-406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Mannarini, T, Talò, C. Evaluating public participation: Instruments and implications for citizen involvement. Community Dev. 2012;(September 2015):1-18.Google Scholar
11 Chang, L, Jacobson, T. Measuring participation as communicative action: A case study of citizen involvement in and assessment of a city's smoking cessation policy-making process. J Commun. 2010;60:660-679.Google Scholar
12 Timotijevic, L, Raats, M. Evaluation of two methods of deliberative participation of older people in food-policy development. Health Policy. 2007;82:302-319.Google Scholar
13 Rowe, G, Horlick-Jones, TE, Walls, J, Poortinga, W, Pidgeon, NF. Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: Reliability, validity and limitations. Public Underst Sci. 2008;17:419-441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Asthana, S, Richardson, S, Halliday, J. Partnership working in public policy provision: A framework for evaluation. Soc Policy Adm [Internet]. 2002;36:780-795. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9515.00317 Google Scholar
15 Gibbon, M, Labonte, R, Laverack, G. Evaluating community capacity. Health Soc Care Community. 2002;10:485-491.Google Scholar
16 Grant, A, Curtis, A. Refining evaluation criteria for public participation using stakeholder perspectives of process and outcomes. Rural Soc. 2004;14:142-162.Google Scholar
17 Jabbar, AM, Abelson, J. Development of a framework for effective community engagement in Ontario, Canada. Health Policy. 2011;101:59-69.Google Scholar
18 Mascarenhas, M, Scarce, R. “The intention was good”: Legitimacy, consensus-based decision making, and the case of forest planning in British Columbia, Canada. Soc Nat Resour. 2004;17:17-38.Google Scholar
19 Thurston, WE, MacKean, G, Vollman, A, et al. Public participation in regional health policy: A theoretical framework. Health Policy. 2005;73:237-252.Google Scholar
20 Brinkerhoff, JM. Assessing and improving partnership relationships and outcomes: A proposed framework. Eval Program Plann. 2002;25:215-231.Google Scholar
21 Laverack, G. An identification and interpretation of the organizational aspects of community empowerment. Community Dev J. 2001;36:134-145.Google Scholar
22 Abelson, J, Forest, PG, Eyles, J, Smith, P, Martin, E, Gauvin, FP. Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57:239-251.Google Scholar
23 Bayley, C, French, S. Designing a participatory process for stakeholder involvement in a societal decision. Group Decis Negot. 2008;17:195-210.Google Scholar
24 Beierle, TC, Konisky, DM. What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes. Environ Plan C Gov Policy. 2001;19:515-527.Google Scholar
25 Biegelbauer, P, Hansen, J. Democratic theory and citizen participation: Democracy models in the evaluation of public participation in science and technology. Sci Public Policy. 2011;38:589-597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26 Martineau-Delisle, C, Nadeau, S. Assessing the effects of public participation processes from the point of view of participants: Significance, achievements, and challenges. For Chron. 2010;86:753-765 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27 Nadeem, O, Fischer, TB. An evaluation framework for effective public participation in EIA in Pakistan. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2011;31:36-47.Google Scholar
28 Rowe, G, Frewer, LJ. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Sci Technol Human Values. 2000;25:3-29.Google Scholar
29 Sykes, C, Goodwin, W. Assessing patient, carer and public involvement in health care. Qual Prim Care. 2007;15:45-52.Google Scholar
30 Chafe, R, Neville, D, Rathwell, T, Deber, R. A framework for involving the public in health care coverage and resource allocation decisions. Healthc Manag Forum. 2008;21:6-13.Google Scholar
31 Stanghellini, PSL. Stakeholder involvement in water management: The role of the stakeholder analysis within participatory processes. Water Policy. 2010;12:675-694.Google Scholar
32 Smiley, S, de Loë, R, Kreutzwiser, R. Appropriate public involvement in local environmental governance: A framework and case study. Soc Nat Resour. 2010;23:1043-1059.Google Scholar
33 Webler, STT. Voices from the forest: What participants expect of a public participation process. Soc Nat Resour. 1999;12:437-453.Google Scholar
34 Branch, KM, Bradbury, JA. Comparison of DOE and Army Advisory Boards: Application of a conceptual framework for evaluating public participation in environmental risk decision making. Policy Stud J. 2006;34:723-754.Google Scholar
35 Blackstock, KL, Kelly, GJ, Horsey, BL. Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecol Econ. 2007;60:726-742.Google Scholar
36 Bloomfield, D, Collins, K, Fry, C, Munton, R. Deliberation and inclusion: Vehicles for increasing trust in UK public governance? Environ Plan C Gov Policy. 2001;19:501-513.Google Scholar
37 Davies, G, Burgess, J. Challenging the “view from nowhere”: Citizen reflections on specialist expertise in a deliberative process. Health Place. 2004;10:349-361.Google Scholar
38 Rosenberg-Yunger, ZRS, Bayoumi, AM. Transparency in Canadian public drug advisory committees. Health Policy. 2014;118:255-263.Google Scholar
39 Webler, T, Tuler, S. Four perspectives on public participation process in environmental assessment and decision making: Combined results from 10 case studies. Policy Stud J. 2006;34:699-722.Google Scholar
40 Pohjola, MV, Tuomisto, JT. Openness in participation, assessment, and policy making upon issues of environment and environmental health: A review of literature and recent project results. Environ Health. 2011;10:58.Google Scholar
41 Charnley, S, Engelbert, B. Evaluating public participation in environmental decision-making: EPA's superfund community involvement program. J Environ Manage. 2005;77:165-182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42 Abelson, J, Li, K, Wilson, G, Shields, K, Schneider, C, Boesveld, S. Supporting quality public and patient engagement in health system organizations: Development and usability testing of the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool. Health Expect. 2015;18: 1-11.Google Scholar
43 A Guide to the Scottish Medicines Consortium. 2016. [cited 2016 Aug 7]; https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/About_SMC/What_we_do/SMC_Guide__web___final_.pdf (accessed August 7, 2016).Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Rosenberg-Yunger and Bayoumi supplementary material

Rosenberg-Yunger and Bayoumi supplementary material 1

Download Rosenberg-Yunger and Bayoumi supplementary material(File)
File 15.5 KB