What Are the Key Ingredients for Effective Public Involvement in Health Care Improvement and Policy Decisions? A Randomized Trial Process Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: In the past 50 years, individual patient involvement at the clinical consultation level has received considerable attention. More recently, patients and the public have increasingly been involved in collective decisions concerning the improvement of health care and policymaking. However, rigorous evaluation guiding the development and implementation of effective public involvement interventions is lacking. This article describes those key ingredients likely to affect public members' ability to deliberate productively with professionals and influence collective health care choices. METHOD: We conducted a trial process evaluation of public involvement in setting priorities for health care improvement. In all, 172 participants (including 83 patients and public members and 89 professionals) from 6 Health and Social Services Centers in Canada participated in the trial. We video-recorded 14 one-day meetings, and 2 nonparticipant observers took structured notes. Using qualitative analysis, we show how public members influenced health care improvement priorities. FINDINGS: Legitimacy, credibility, and power explain the variations in the public members' influence. Their credibility was supported by their personal experience as patients and caregivers, the provision of a structured preparation meeting, and access to population-based data from their community. Legitimacy was fostered by the recruitment of a balanced group of participants and by the public members' opportunities to draw from one another's experience. The combination of small-group deliberations, wider public consultation, and a moderation style focused on effective group process helped level out the power differences between professionals and the public. The engagement of key stakeholders in the intervention design and implementation helped build policy support for public involvement. CONCLUSIONS: A number of interacting active ingredients structure and foster the public's legitimacy, credibility, and power. By paying greater attention to them, policymakers could develop and implement more effective public involvement interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.351 | 0.370 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".