Literature DB >> 22109631

The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review.

Carole Mockford1, Sophie Staniszewska, Frances Griffiths, Sandra Herron-Marx.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become an integral part of health care with its emphasis on including and empowering individuals and communities in the shaping of health and social care services. The aims of this study were to identify the impact of PPI on UK National Health Service (NHS) healthcare services and to identify the economic cost. It also examined how PPI is being defined, theorized and conceptualized, and how the impact of PPI is captured or measured. DATA SOURCES: Seventeen key online databases and websites were searched, e.g. Medline and the King's Fund. STUDY SELECTION: UK studies from 1997 to 2009 which included service user involvement in NHS healthcare services. Date extraction Key themes were identified and a narrative analysis was undertaken. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: The review indicates that PPI has a range of impacts on healthcare services. There is little evidence of any economic analysis of the costs involved. A key limitation of the PPI evidence base is the poor quality of reporting impact. Few studies define PPI, there is little theoretical underpinning or conceptualization reported, there is an absence of robust measurement of impact and descriptive evidence lacked detail.
CONCLUSION: There is a need for significant development of the PPI evidence base particularly around guidance for the reporting of user activity and impact. The evidence base needs to be significantly strengthened to ensure the full impact of involving service users in NHS healthcare services is fully understood.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22109631     DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzr066

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care        ISSN: 1353-4505            Impact factor:   2.038


  155 in total

1.  Can research development bursaries for patient and public involvement have a positive impact on grant applications? A UK-based, small-scale service evaluation.

Authors:  Dawn-Marie Walker; Raksha Pandya-Wood
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Public participation: more than a method?: Comment on "Harnessing the potential to quantify public preferences for healthcare priorities through citizens' juries".

Authors:  Annette Boaz; Mary Chambers; Maria Stuttaford
Journal:  Int J Health Policy Manag       Date:  2014-10-15

3.  Patient and public involvement in urogynecology: a pause for reflection before taking a leap.

Authors:  Sharif Ismail; Diaa E E Rizk
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  EANM commitment towards involvement and engagement of patients and the public: learning from the UK experience.

Authors:  Ana Sofia Ribeiro; Martin Lee; Wim J G Oyen
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2019-08-02       Impact factor: 9.236

5.  Patient and public involvement in patient-reported outcome measures: evolution not revolution.

Authors:  Sophie Staniszewska; Kirstie L Haywood; Jo Brett; Liz Tutton
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  'Calling executives and clinicians to account': user involvement in commissioning cancer services.

Authors:  David H Evans; Roger J Bacon; Elizabeth Greer; Angela M Stagg; Pat Turton
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-02-18       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Concept Mapping as a Method to Engage Patients in Clinical Quality Improvement.

Authors:  Marianna LaNoue; Geoffrey Mills; Amy Cunningham; Adam Sharbaugh
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 5.166

8.  How can qualitative research be utilised in the NHS when re-designing and commissioning services?

Authors:  Karen L Barker
Journal:  Br J Pain       Date:  2015-02

9.  An Association of Cancer Physicians' strategy for improving services and outcomes for cancer patients.

Authors:  Richard Baird; Ian Banks; David Cameron; John Chester; Helena Earl; Mark Flannagan; Adam Januszewski; Richard Kennedy; Sarah Payne; Emlyn Samuel; Hannah Taylor; Roshan Agarwal; Samreen Ahmed; Caroline Archer; Ruth Board; Judith Carser; Ellen Copson; David Cunningham; Rob Coleman; Adam Dangoor; Graham Dark; Diana Eccles; Chris Gallagher; Adam Glaser; Richard Griffiths; Geoff Hall; Marcia Hall; Danielle Harari; Michael Hawkins; Mark Hill; Peter Johnson; Alison Jones; Tania Kalsi; Eleni Karapanagiotou; Zoe Kemp; Janine Mansi; Ernie Marshall; Alex Mitchell; Maung Moe; Caroline Michie; Richard Neal; Tom Newsom-Davis; Alison Norton; Richard Osborne; Gargi Patel; John Radford; Alistair Ring; Emily Shaw; Rod Skinner; Dan Stark; Sam Turnbull; Galina Velikova; Jeff White; Alison Young; Johnathan Joffe; Peter Selby
Journal:  Ecancermedicalscience       Date:  2016-01-05

10.  Patients as research partners; how to value their perceptions, contribution and labor?

Authors:  Elise Smith; Jean-Chrisophe Bélisle-Pipon; David Resnik
Journal:  Citiz Sci       Date:  2019-03-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.