Patient and public involvement in translative healthcare research

Emerald - 2010
CliveSavory1
1Technology Management Research Group, Department of Communication and Systems, Faculty of Maths, Computing and Technology, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

Tóm tắt

PurposeThis paper aims to set out a framework that can be used for locating strategies for incorporating patient and public involvement (PPI) in the wider process of translative healthcare research.Design/methodology/approachThis paper is analytical and synthesizes knowledge from several disciplines in order to provide a coherent framework for understanding the scope and purpose of PPI. The framework sets out four idealised strategies for PPI based on mode and purpose of involvement. The paper concludes by summarising a range of implications for organisations involved in the governance of translative healthcare research.FindingsThe framework defines four idealised strategies for PPI in translative healthcare research. The strategies range in purpose from collecting patient data, through to improving public involvement and knowledge with respect to healthcare research.Practical implicationsThe framework presented has direct relevance for agencies concerned with the management and governance of translative healthcare research. The framework is relevant when either designing or auditing research pathways in terms of PPI activities. The framework is also important in highlighting to healthcare leaders, researchers, patients and the wider public, the potential role of participation in healthcare research.Originality/valueThis paper's value is that it combines perspectives from the wider literature on innovation, user‐led design and participation, to the problem of translative healthcare research.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Abelson, J., Forest, P.‐G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E. and Gauvin, F.‐P. (2003), “Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 239‐51.

Bowie, C., Richardson, A. and Sykes, W. (1995), “Consulting the public about health service priorities”, BMJ, Vol. 311 No. 7013, pp. 1155‐8.

Chesbrough, H.W. (2003), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Cooksey, D. (2006), A Review of UK Health Research Funding, HM Treasury, London.

Department of Health (1998), “A first class service: quality in the new NHS”, Department of Health, London.

Department of Health (1999), Clinical Governance: Quality in the New NHS, original edition, HSC 1999/065, NHS Executive, London.

Department of Health (2008), Treatment of Heart Attack National Guidance: Final Report of the National Infarct Angioplasty Project (NIAP), Department of Health, London.

Department of Health (2009a), “Helping the NHS put patients at the heart of care: the patient and public engagement support programme 2009‐10”, Patient and Public Engagement, Department of Health, London.

Department of Health (2009b), The NHS Constitution, Department of Health, London.

DH Commissioning and System Management (2008), “Real involvement: working with people to improve health services”, Department of Health, London.

Dibben, P. and Bartlett, D. (2001), “Local government and service users: empowerment through user‐led innovation?”, Local Government Studies, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 43‐58.

Eysenbach, G. (2008), “Medicine 2.0: social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness”, Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, p. e22.

Fals Borda, O. and Rahman, A. (1991), Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action‐Research, Apex Press: Intermediate Technology Publications, New York, NY/London.

Flowers, S., Mateos‐Garcia, J., Sapsed, J., Nightingale, P., Grantham, A. and Voss, G. (2008), The New Inventors: How Users Are Changing the Rules of Innovation, NESTA, London.

Frost, J.H. and Massagli, M.P. (2008), “Social uses of personal health information within patientslikeme, an online patient community: what can happen when patients have access to one another's data”, Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, p. e15.

Gollust, S.E., Apse, K., Fuller, B.P., Miller, P.S. and Biesecker, B.B. (2005), “Community involvement in developing policies for genetic testing: assessing the interests and experiences of individuals affected by genetic conditions”, Am. J. Public Health, Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 35‐41.

Hanley, B. et al. (2004), Involving the Public in NHS, Public Health, and Social Care Research: Briefing Notes for Researchers, INVOLVE Support Unit, Eastleigh.

Heron, J. and Reason, P. (1997), “A participatory inquiry paradigm”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 274‐94.

House of Commons Health Committee (2007), Patient and Public Involvement in the NHS: Third Report of Session 2006‐07, The Stationery Office, London.

Howard‐Grabman, L. (1996), “Planning together: developing community plans to address priority material and neonatal problems in rural Bolivia”, in De Koning, K. and Martin, M. (Eds), Participatory Research in Health: Issues and Experiences, Atlantic Highlands, London.

INVOLVE (2009), “Good practice in active public involvement in research”, INVOLVE, National Institute for Health Research, Eastleigh.

Israel, B.A. (2005), Methods in Community‐based Participatory Research for Health, 1st ed., Jossey‐Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Kennedy, I. (2001), “Learning from Bristol: the report of the public enquiry into children's heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984‐1995”, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol.

Lettl, C., Hienerth, C. and Gemuenden, H.G. (2008), “Exploring how lead users develop radical innovation: opportunity recognition and exploitation in the field of medical equipment technology”, Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 219‐33.

NCI (2009), “What's going on at the Centre? PPI guides from our learning team”, NCI Newsletter Issue 18, p. 2.

Park, P. (1999), “People, knowledge, and change in participatory research”, Management Learning, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 141‐57.

Reason, P. (1999), “Integrating action and reflection through co‐operative inquiry”, Management Learning, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 207‐26.

Redfern, M., Keeling, J. and Powell, E. (2001), The Report of the Royal Liverpool Children's Inquiry, The Stationery Office, London.

Rothwell, R. (1992), “Developments towards the fifth generation model of innovation”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, p. 73.

Schein, E. (2000), “Clinical inquiry/research”, in Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (Eds), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, Sage, London.

Stowell, F. and West, D. (1994), Client Led Design, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.

von Hippel, E. (2005), Democratizing Innovation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Weaver, Y. and Nicholls, V. (2001), “The Camden ‘Alternative Choices in Mental Health’ Project”, in Winter, R. and Munn‐Giddings, C. (Eds), A Handbook for Action Research in Health and Social Care, Routledge, London/New York, NY.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Emerald

Thông tin tác giả