Skip header and navigation

2 records – page 1 of 1.

Target for improvement: a cluster randomised trial of public involvement in quality-indicator prioritisation (intervention development and study protocol).

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature134680
Source
Implement Sci. 2011;6:45
Publication Type
Article
Date
2011
Author
Antoine Boivin
Pascale Lehoux
Réal Lacombe
Anaïs Lacasse
Jako Burgers
Richard Grol
Author Affiliation
Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. antoine.boivin@gmail.com
Source
Implement Sci. 2011;6:45
Date
2011
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Consumer Participation - methods
Health Priorities - standards
Humans
Patient Selection
Pilot Projects
Quality Improvement
Quality Indicators, Health Care - standards
Quebec
Research Design
Sample Size
Abstract
Public priorities for improvement often differ from those of clinicians and managers. Public involvement has been proposed as a way to bridge the gap between professional and public clinical care priorities but has not been studied in the context of quality-indicator choice. Our objective is to assess the feasibility and impact of public involvement on quality-indicator choice and agreement with public priorities.
We will conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing quality-indicator prioritisation with and without public involvement. In preparation for the trial, we developed a 'menu' of quality indicators, based on a systematic review of existing validated indicator sets. Participants (public representatives, clinicians, and managers) will be recruited from six participating sites. In intervention sites, public representatives will be involved through direct participation (public representatives, clinicians, and managers will deliberate together to agree on quality-indicator choice and use) and consultation (individual public recommendations for improvement will be collected and presented to decision makers). In control sites, only clinicians and managers will take part in the prioritisation process. Data on quality-indicator choice and intended use will be collected. Our primary outcome will compare quality-indicator choice and agreement with public priorities between intervention and control groups. A process evaluation based on direct observation, videorecording, and participants' assessment will be conducted to help explain the study's results. The marginal cost of public involvement will also be assessed.
We identified 801 quality indicators that met our inclusion criteria. An expert panel agreed on a final set of 37 items containing validated quality indicators relevant for chronic disease prevention and management in primary care. We pilot tested our public-involvement intervention with 27 participants (11 public representatives and 16 clinicians and managers) and our study instruments with an additional 21 participants, which demonstrated the feasibility of the intervention and generated important insights and adaptations to engage public representatives more effectively. To our knowledge, this study is the first trial of public involvement in quality-indicator prioritisation, and its results could foster more effective upstream engagement of patients and the public in clinical practice improvement.
NTR2496 (Netherlands National Trial Register, http://www.trialregister.nl).
Notes
Cites: Am J Public Health. 2004 Mar;94(3):416-2214998805
Cites: Med Decis Making. 2011 Nov-Dec;31(6):E45-7421959267
Cites: Health Expect. 2004 Sep;7(3):209-2015327460
Cites: Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1966 Jul;44(3):Suppl:166-2065338568
Cites: CMAJ. 1995 Aug 15;153(4):403-127634217
Cites: Qual Health Care. 1996 Jun;5(2):73-8010158595
Cites: N Engl J Med. 1996 Sep 19;335(12):891-48778612
Cites: Soc Sci Med. 1996 Oct;43(8):1283-78903133
Cites: Am J Prev Med. 1998 Apr;14(3 Suppl):14-219566932
Cites: Med Care. 1998 May;36(5):728-399596063
Cites: JAMA. 1998 May 27;279(20):1638-429613914
Cites: Soc Sci Med. 1998 Nov;47(10):1573-889823053
Cites: J Public Health Med. 1998 Dec;20(4):414-219923948
Cites: Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(6):1-7610350450
Cites: CMAJ. 2005 Jan 18;172(2):177-8015655234
Cites: Med Care. 2005 May;43(5):436-4415838407
Cites: Int J Qual Health Care. 2005 Dec;17(6):497-50416037101
Cites: BMJ. 2006 Feb 18;332(7538):413-616484270
Cites: J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006 Winter;26(1):13-2416557505
Cites: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(3):CD00456316856050
Cites: Soc Sci Med. 2006 Oct;63(8):2091-10416797811
Cites: Int J Qual Health Care. 2006 Sep;18 Suppl 1:5-1316954510
Cites: Ann Fam Med. 2007 Jul-Aug;5(4):336-4417664500
Cites: J Eval Clin Pract. 2007 Aug;13(4):607-1517683303
Cites: BMJ. 2007 Nov 17;335(7628):1021-218007003
Cites: Int J Qual Health Care. 1999 Dec;11(6):487-9610680945
Cites: BMJ. 2000 Sep 16;321(7262):694-610987780
Cites: Health Aff (Millwood). 2000 Sep-Oct;19(5):138-4310992661
Cites: Soc Sci Med. 2000 Dec;51(11):1611-2511072882
Cites: Oncology. 2000 Nov;59(4):283-9011096339
Cites: Br J Gen Pract. 2000 Nov;50(460):882-711141874
Cites: Qual Health Care. 2001 Mar;10(1):1-211239135
Cites: MedGenMed. 2001 Mar 5;3(2):211549951
Cites: Health Aff (Millwood). 2001 Nov-Dec;20(6):64-7811816692
Cites: Health Serv Manage Res. 2002 May;15(2):126-3712028801
Cites: JAMA. 2002 Oct 9;288(14):1775-912365965
Cites: Aust Health Rev. 2002;25(4):12-812404962
Cites: Qual Saf Health Care. 2002 Jun;11(2):153-712448808
Cites: BMJ. 2002 Nov 30;325(7375):126312458240
Cites: Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Feb;12(1):47-5212571345
Cites: BMJ. 2003 Apr 12;326(7393):816-912689983
Cites: Soc Sci Med. 2003 Jul;57(2):239-5112765705
Cites: Can J Cardiol. 2004 Jan;20(1):31-4014968141
Cites: Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Feb;70(2):234-4118023129
Cites: Health Aff (Millwood). 2009 Jan-Feb;28(1):w1-1619008253
Cites: Soc Sci Med. 2009 Jun;68(11):2002-919362763
Cites: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):CD00143119588325
Cites: Health Policy. 2009 Aug;91(3):219-2819261347
Cites: Med Care. 2009 Aug;47(8):908-1519543120
Cites: Qual Saf Health Care. 2010 Oct;19(5):e2220427302
Cites: Health Technol Assess. 2004 Apr;8(15):1-148, III-IV15080866
PubMed ID
21554691 View in PubMed
Less detail

What are the key ingredients for effective public involvement in health care improvement and policy decisions? A randomized trial process evaluation.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature104216
Source
Milbank Q. 2014 Jun;92(2):319-50
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jun-2014
Author
Antoine Boivin
Pascale Lehoux
Jako Burgers
Richard Grol
Author Affiliation
Université de Sherbrooke.
Source
Milbank Q. 2014 Jun;92(2):319-50
Date
Jun-2014
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Canada
Consumer Participation - methods
Female
Health Policy
Humans
Male
Policy Making
Public Opinion
Quality Improvement - organization & administration
Quality of Health Care - organization & administration
Abstract
In the past 50 years, individual patient involvement at the clinical consultation level has received considerable attention. More recently, patients and the public have increasingly been involved in collective decisions concerning the improvement of health care and policymaking. However, rigorous evaluation guiding the development and implementation of effective public involvement interventions is lacking. This article describes those key ingredients likely to affect public members' ability to deliberate productively with professionals and influence collective health care choices.
We conducted a trial process evaluation of public involvement in setting priorities for health care improvement. In all, 172 participants (including 83 patients and public members and 89 professionals) from 6 Health and Social Services Centers in Canada participated in the trial. We video-recorded 14 one-day meetings, and 2 nonparticipant observers took structured notes. Using qualitative analysis, we show how public members influenced health care improvement priorities.
Legitimacy, credibility, and power explain the variations in the public members' influence. Their credibility was supported by their personal experience as patients and caregivers, the provision of a structured preparation meeting, and access to population-based data from their community. Legitimacy was fostered by the recruitment of a balanced group of participants and by the public members' opportunities to draw from one another's experience. The combination of small-group deliberations, wider public consultation, and a moderation style focused on effective group process helped level out the power differences between professionals and the public. The engagement of key stakeholders in the intervention design and implementation helped build policy support for public involvement.
A number of interacting active ingredients structure and foster the public's legitimacy, credibility, and power. By paying greater attention to them, policymakers could develop and implement more effective public involvement interventions.
Notes
Cites: Med Care. 2004 Apr;42(4):346-5415076811
Cites: Health Technol Assess. 2004 Apr;8(15):1-148, III-IV15080866
Cites: Science. 1977 Apr 8;196(4286):129-36847460
Cites: Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581-62915595944
Cites: Health Policy. 2006 Apr;76(2):156-6816006004
Cites: Milbank Q. 2006;84(1):165-20016529572
Cites: Soc Sci Med. 2006 Jul;63(2):373-8316472899
Cites: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(3):CD00456316856050
Cites: Milbank Q. 2007;85(1):93-13817319808
Cites: Soc Sci Med. 2007 May;64(10):2115-2817368680
Cites: BMJ. 2007 Jul 7;335(7609):24-717615222
Cites: Sociol Health Illn. 2008 Jan;30(1):35-5418254832
Cites: Health Expect. 2008 Mar;11(1):72-8418275404
Cites: Health Econ Policy Law. 2006 Apr;1(Pt 2):149-6218634687
Cites: Soc Sci Med. 2008 Dec;67(11):1757-6518922611
Cites: Soc Sci Med. 2009 Jun;68(11):2002-919362763
Cites: Health Policy. 2009 Aug;91(3):219-2819261347
Cites: Med Care. 2009 Aug;47(8):908-1519543120
Cites: N Engl J Med. 2010 Mar 18;362(11):970-320164480
Cites: Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010 Jul;26(3):334-4020584364
Cites: BMJ. 2010;341:c498920947576
Cites: Qual Saf Health Care. 2010 Oct;19(5):e2220427302
Cites: JAMA. 2011 May 11;305(18):1846-821558510
Cites: Implement Sci. 2011;6:4521554691
Cites: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(10):CD00143121975733
Cites: Med Decis Making. 2011 Nov-Dec;31(6):E45-7421959267
Cites: Soc Sci Med. 2012 Jun;74(12):1843-5022464908
Cites: J Public Health Policy. 2002;23(1):12-3212013713
Cites: Br J Sociol. 2001 Mar;52(1):59-8611321230
Cites: Implement Sci. 2014;9:2424555508
Cites: Health Policy. 2002 Aug;61(2):213-3612088893
Cites: JAMA. 2002 Oct 9;288(14):1775-912365965
Cites: BMJ. 2002 Nov 30;325(7375):126312458240
Cites: Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Feb;12(1):40-612571344
Cites: Soc Sci Med. 2003 Jul;57(2):239-5112765705
Cites: Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003 Summer;19(3):546-5412962342
Cites: Soc Sci Med. 2004 Jan;58(2):321-3014604618
Cites: BMJ. 2004 Jan 17;328(7432):159-6114726350
PubMed ID
24890250 View in PubMed
Less detail