Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy
-
Involving members of the public in setting priorities for health research in becoming increasingly common practice. One method used in public involvement exercises is the citizens' jury. ⋯ In this article we discuss degree and timing of public involvement in the process of health research; the role of context; representation of communities; processes of deliberation and knowledge production; and how constraints of time and cost may affect public involvement. It was clear that jurors who took part in the Bristol Citizens' Jury were engaged and committed. This engagement may be related to jurors' belief in their ability to shape future research alongside concern about the relevance of the issues under discussion. Opposing emotions of tension and harmony are a crucial part of the deliberation process.
-
To assess the feasibility of using a citizens' jury to elicit public values on health technologies and to develop criteria for setting priorities for health technology assessment (HTA). ⋯ Citizens' juries offer a feasible approach to involving the public in priority-setting for HTA. Furthermore, technologies that may benefit a number of people and improve quality of life appear to be of greatest importance to the public.
-
To evaluate the use of a modified Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey to support quality improvement in a collaborative focused on patient-centred care, assess subsequent changes in patient experiences, and identify factors that promoted or impeded data use. ⋯ Small measurable improvements in patient experience may be achieved over short projects. Sustaining more substantial change is likely to require organizational strategies, engaged leadership, cultural change, regular measurement and performance feedback and experience of interpreting and using survey data.
-
To measure preferences for angina treatments among patients admitted from accident and emergency with acute coronary syndrome. ⋯ There was general preference for procedural interventions over medication, but most patients would accept any treatment, however extreme, to return to former health. There was some evidence of differences in preferences related to age and sex. Furthermore, most patients preferred to have some input into treatment choice (e.g. nearly half wanted to share decision responsibility with their doctor), with only 4% preferring to leave the decision entirely to their doctor. Given these findings, and past findings that suggest there may be variability in treatment allocation according to certain socio-demographic factors, this study suggests a need to develop and use preference measures, and makes a step towards this.
-
To identify the determinants of the intention of physicians to screen for decisional conflict in clinical practice. ⋯ Variables predicting the intention of health professionals to screen for decisional conflict in clinical practice using the DCS change over time suggesting that effective implementation interventions in this area will need to be modified longitudinally.