Josephine Ocloo1,2, Sara Garfield3,4, Bryony Dean Franklin3,4, Shoba Dawson5. 1. Centre for Implementation Science, Health Services, Population and Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, UK. Josephine.ocloo@kcl.ac.uk. 2. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration South London (NIHR ARC South London) At King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Josephine.ocloo@kcl.ac.uk. 3. Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK. 4. University College London School of Pharmacy, London, UK. 5. Centre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The emergence of patient and public involvement (PPI) in healthcare in the UK can be traced as far back as the 1970s. More recently, campaigns by harmed patients have led to a renewed focus on strengthening PPI. There is a growing awareness of the benefits of PPI in research as well as a need to address power inequities and a lack of diversity and inclusion. This review was undertaken to look at evidence for theories, barriers and enablers in PPI across health, social care and patient safety that could be used to strengthen PPI and address a perceived knowledge and theory gap with PPI in patient safety. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to August 2018, using both MeSH and free-text terms to identify published empirical literature. Protocols in PROSPERO were also searched to identify any systematic reviews in progress. The extracted information was analysed using a narrative approach, which synthesises data using a descriptive method. RESULTS: Forty-two reviews were identified and grouped by key outcomes. Twenty-two papers mentioned theory in some form, 31 mentioned equality and diversity (although with no theory mentioned in this area), and only 19 cited equality and diversity as a barrier or enabler. Thirty-four reviews identified barriers and enablers at different organisational levels: personal/individual; attitudes; health professional; roles and expectations; knowledge, information and communication; financing and resourcing; training; general support; recruitment and representation, PPI methods and working with communities and addressing power dynamics. CONCLUSIONS: The review findings suggest that a commitment to PPI and partnership working is dependent on taking a whole system approach. This needs to consider the complex individual and organisational enablers and constraints to this process and address imbalances of power experienced by different groups. Addressing equality and diversity and use of a theory-driven approach to guide PPI are neglected areas. The long tradition of involvement across health and social care can provide considerable expertise in thinking about ways to strengthen approaches to PPI. This is especially important in patient safety, with a much newer tradition of developing PPI than other areas of healthcare.
BACKGROUND: The emergence of patient and public involvement (PPI) in healthcare in the UK can be traced as far back as the 1970s. More recently, campaigns by harmed patients have led to a renewed focus on strengthening PPI. There is a growing awareness of the benefits of PPI in research as well as a need to address power inequities and a lack of diversity and inclusion. This review was undertaken to look at evidence for theories, barriers and enablers in PPI across health, social care and patient safety that could be used to strengthen PPI and address a perceived knowledge and theory gap with PPI in patient safety. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to August 2018, using both MeSH and free-text terms to identify published empirical literature. Protocols in PROSPERO were also searched to identify any systematic reviews in progress. The extracted information was analysed using a narrative approach, which synthesises data using a descriptive method. RESULTS: Forty-two reviews were identified and grouped by key outcomes. Twenty-two papers mentioned theory in some form, 31 mentioned equality and diversity (although with no theory mentioned in this area), and only 19 cited equality and diversity as a barrier or enabler. Thirty-four reviews identified barriers and enablers at different organisational levels: personal/individual; attitudes; health professional; roles and expectations; knowledge, information and communication; financing and resourcing; training; general support; recruitment and representation, PPI methods and working with communities and addressing power dynamics. CONCLUSIONS: The review findings suggest that a commitment to PPI and partnership working is dependent on taking a whole system approach. This needs to consider the complex individual and organisational enablers and constraints to this process and address imbalances of power experienced by different groups. Addressing equality and diversity and use of a theory-driven approach to guide PPI are neglected areas. The long tradition of involvement across health and social care can provide considerable expertise in thinking about ways to strengthen approaches to PPI. This is especially important in patient safety, with a much newer tradition of developing PPI than other areas of healthcare.
Entities:
Keywords:
Barriers and enablers; Health; Patient and public involvement; Social care and patient safety; Systematic review of reviews; Theory
Authors: France Légaré; Antoine Boivin; Trudy van der Weijden; Christine Pakenham; Jako Burgers; Jean Légaré; Sylvie St-Jacques; Susie Gagnon Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Marie Desmartis; Dolorès Lepage-Savary; Johanne Gagnon; Michèle St-Pierre; Marc Rhainds; Renald Lemieux; Francois-Pierre Gauvin; Hugo Pollender; France Légaré Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Benjamin J Oldfield; Marcus A Harrison; Inginia Genao; Ann T Greene; Mary Ellen Pappas; Janis G Glover; Marjorie S Rosenthal Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-07-26 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Oli Williams; Sophie Sarre; Stan Constantina Papoulias; Sarah Knowles; Glenn Robert; Peter Beresford; Diana Rose; Sarah Carr; Meerat Kaur; Victoria J Palmer Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2020-05-07
Authors: S Fowler Davis; C Woodward; B Greenfield; C Homer; K Williams; W Hameed; B Riley; D Roberts; G Bryan Journal: Perspect Public Health Date: 2022-07
Authors: Natalie N Anderson; G Ross Baker; Lesley Moody; Kerseri Scane; Robin Urquhart; Walter P Wodchis; Anna R Gagliardi Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2021-11-13 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Colleen M McBride; Gavin P Campbell; Jingsong Zhao; Rebecca D Pentz; Cam Escoffery; Michael Komonos; Kelly Cannova; Janice L B Byrne; Nancy M Paris; James R Shepperd; Yue Guan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Julia Jones; Marion Cowe; Sue Marks; Tony McAllister; Alex Mendoza; Carole Ponniah; Helena Wythe; Elspeth Mathie Journal: Res Involv Engagem Date: 2021-07-22