| Literature DB >> 24902728 |
Sian Taylor-Phillips1, Aileen Clarke1, Amy Grove1, Jacky Swan2, Helen Parsons1, Emmanouil Gkeredakis2, Penny Mills1, John Powell1, Davide Nicolini2, Claudia Roginski3, Harry Scarbrough2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To undertake an assessment of the association between coproduction and satisfaction with decisions made for local healthcare communities.Entities:
Keywords: Health Policy; Health Services Administration & Management; Health Services Commissioning; Health Services Management; Healthcare Decision Making
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24902728 PMCID: PMC4054620 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004810
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Figure 1Principles important for the success of coproduction as defined by Swan et al.15
Figure 2Conceptual model of potential predictors of decision satisfaction. Adapted from Swan15 (NHS, National Health Service).
Figure 3The coproduction questions and the scoring system applied.
The effect of adding each predictor separately to the null multilevel model of decision satisfaction
| Predictor | Improvement to model fit (change in −2log likelihood) | Coefficient B (SE) |
|---|---|---|
| Decision size (service cost) | 51.8*** | 0.004 (0.053) |
| PCA1: productive discussion | 48.5*** | −0.170 (0.023) |
| PCA2: information availability and use | 22.7*** | −0.112 (0.023) |
| The number of decision-making tools used | 17.4*** | −0.0408 (0.0166) |
| Experience of NHS commissioning (years) | 12.8*** | −0.0102 (0.0049) |
| Sources of empirical evidence as defined by Weatherly | 10.7** | −0.037 (0.051) |
| Sources of evidence derived from our qualitative research | 10.4** | −0.014 (0.050) |
| Respondent medical qualification (yes/no) | 6.4* | −0.1299 (0.0510) |
| Index of multiple deprivation of population served (IMD) | 2.9 | 0.0056 (0.0032) |
| PCA3: dealing with uncertainty | 0.7 | −0.008 (0.024) |
| Size of population served (proxy for size of commissioning organisation) | 0.1 | 0.0000 (0.0000) |
*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.
NHS, National Health Service; PCA, principal component analysis.
Figure 4The three distinct subscales explained by principal components (PCs) produced explained by three PCs of the coproduction scale.
The final model for influences on decision satisfaction (model fit −2LL=157.7)
| Predictor | Coefficient | (SE) |
|---|---|---|
| The size of the decision | 0.021 | (0.027) |
| PCA1: productive discussion | −0.16 | (0.02) |
| PCA2: information availability and use | −0.11 | (0.02) |
| The number of decision-making tools used | −0.007 | (0.02) |
| Respondent years experience of NHS commissioning | −0.009 | (0.005) |
| Respondent medical qualification | −0.09 | (0.05) |
Note that lower scores denote higher decision satisfaction. At an individual level, the coefficients can be interpreted as the change in decision satisfaction for a unit change in the predictor.
NHS, National Health Service; PCA, principal component analysis.