Frederike Haarsma1, Albine Moser1,2,3, Manon Beckers4, Henk van Rijswijk4, Esther Stoffers5,6, Anna Beurskens1,2,3. 1. Research Centre Autonomy and Participation for Persons with a Chronic Illness, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, The Netherlands. 2. Centre of Expertise in Innovative Care and Technology, Heerlen, The Netherlands. 3. Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Sounding Board Groups Palliative Care Networks, Limburg, The Netherlands. 5. Care Consumers, Limburg, The Netherlands. 6. House of Care, Sittard, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Public involvement in palliative care is challenging and difficult, because people in need of palliative care are often not capable of speaking up for themselves. Patient representatives advocate for their common interests. The aim of our study was to examine in depth the current practice of public involvement in palliative care. SETTING AND SAMPLE: The study was conducted in the province of Limburg in the Netherlands, with six palliative care networks. Study participants were 16 patient representatives and 12 professionals. METHOD: This study had a descriptive design using qualitative methods: 18 in-depth interviews and three focus groups were conducted. The critical incident technique was used. The data were analysed using an analytical framework based on Arnstein's involvement classification and the process of decision making. Impact categories as well as facilitators and barriers were analysed using content analysis. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: The perceived impact of public involvement in palliative care in terms of citizen control and partnership is greatest with regard to quality of care, information development and dissemination, and in terms of policymaking with regard to the preparation and implementation phases of decision making. The main difference in perceived impact between patient representatives and professionals relates to the tension between operational and strategic involvement. Patient representatives experienced more impact regarding short-term solutions to practical problems, while professionals perceived great benefits in long-term, strategic processes. Improving public involvement in palliative care requires positive attitudes, open communication, sufficient resources and long-term support, to build a solid basis for pursuing meaningful involvement in the entire decision-making process.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Public involvement in palliative care is challenging and difficult, because people in need of palliative care are often not capable of speaking up for themselves. Patient representatives advocate for their common interests. The aim of our study was to examine in depth the current practice of public involvement in palliative care. SETTING AND SAMPLE: The study was conducted in the province of Limburg in the Netherlands, with six palliative care networks. Study participants were 16 patient representatives and 12 professionals. METHOD: This study had a descriptive design using qualitative methods: 18 in-depth interviews and three focus groups were conducted. The critical incident technique was used. The data were analysed using an analytical framework based on Arnstein's involvement classification and the process of decision making. Impact categories as well as facilitators and barriers were analysed using content analysis. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: The perceived impact of public involvement in palliative care in terms of citizen control and partnership is greatest with regard to quality of care, information development and dissemination, and in terms of policymaking with regard to the preparation and implementation phases of decision making. The main difference in perceived impact between patient representatives and professionals relates to the tension between operational and strategic involvement. Patient representatives experienced more impact regarding short-term solutions to practical problems, while professionals perceived great benefits in long-term, strategic processes. Improving public involvement in palliative care requires positive attitudes, open communication, sufficient resources and long-term support, to build a solid basis for pursuing meaningful involvement in the entire decision-making process.
Authors: Jo Brett; Sophie Staniszewska; Carole Mockford; Sandra Herron-Marx; John Hughes; Colin Tysall; Rashida Suleman Journal: Health Expect Date: 2012-07-19 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Laurann Yen; James Gillespie; Yun-Hee Jeon; Marjan Kljakovic; Jo Anne Brien; Stephen Jan; Elin Lehnbom; Carmen Pearce-Brown; Tim Usherwood Journal: Health Expect Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Cláudia de Freitas; Vanessa Dos Reis; Susana Silva; Paula A Videira; Eva Morava; Jaak Jaeken Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-09-26 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Jeanette Finderup; Louise Engelbrecht Buur; Sarah Cecilie Tscherning; Annesofie Lunde Jensen; Anne Wilhøft Kristensen; Anne Poder Petersen; Bente Skovsby Toft; Gitte Susanne Rasmussen; Pernille Skovlund; Tina Wang Vedelø; Lotte Ørneborg Rodkjær Journal: Res Involv Engagem Date: 2022-08-26
Authors: Marijanne Engel; Arianne Stoppelenburg; Andrée van der Ark; Floor M Bols; Johannis Bruggeman; Ellen C J Janssens-van Vliet; Johanna H Kleingeld-van der Windt; Ingrid E Pladdet; Angelique E M J To-Baert; Lia van Zuylen; Agnes van der Heide Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2021-06-05 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Halle Johnson; Margaret Ogden; Lisa Jane Brighton; Simon Noah Etkind; Adejoke O Oluyase; Emeka Chukwusa; Peihan Yu; Susanne de Wolf-Linder; Pam Smith; Sylvia Bailey; Jonathan Koffman; Catherine J Evans Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 4.762