PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to report the findings of a study that examined the development of an assessment framework for public involvement. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The paper has adopted a multi-method approach that includes: a focused review of literature relating to tools that might be used to provide valid and reliable assessments of public involvement; key informant interviews with people with experience from various perspectives of efforts to involve the public in the planning and development of health services; and a detailed study of a specific public involvement initiative involving a range of "stakeholder" interviews. FINDINGS: The paper finds that there are uncertainty and a lack of consensus about how assessment of public involvement should be undertaken. The findings emphasise the need to recognise the diverse nature of public involvement, which may require assessment to be employed flexibly at each individual NHS Board level. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The paper is a small-scale study, in which it was only possible to probe a limited number of stakeholders' views due to practical and time restrictions. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The paper adds value to the discussions taking place at Scottish Government level as to the best approach in assessing public involvement in health service decision making.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to report the findings of a study that examined the development of an assessment framework for public involvement. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The paper has adopted a multi-method approach that includes: a focused review of literature relating to tools that might be used to provide valid and reliable assessments of public involvement; key informant interviews with people with experience from various perspectives of efforts to involve the public in the planning and development of health services; and a detailed study of a specific public involvement initiative involving a range of "stakeholder" interviews. FINDINGS: The paper finds that there are uncertainty and a lack of consensus about how assessment of public involvement should be undertaken. The findings emphasise the need to recognise the diverse nature of public involvement, which may require assessment to be employed flexibly at each individual NHS Board level. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The paper is a small-scale study, in which it was only possible to probe a limited number of stakeholders' views due to practical and time restrictions. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The paper adds value to the discussions taking place at Scottish Government level as to the best approach in assessing public involvement in health service decision making.