4.4 Review

What is the evidence base for public involvement in health-care policy?: results of a systematic scoping review

期刊

HEALTH EXPECTATIONS
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 153-165

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/hex.12038

关键词

decision making; health policy; impact; outcomes; public involvement; priority-setting; review

资金

  1. Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gutersloh, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundPublic involvement in health-care policy has been advocated as a means to enhance health system responsiveness, yet evidence for its impact has been difficult to ascertain. ObjectivesTo review the peer-reviewed empirical evidence on outcomes of public involvement in health-care policy. MethodsWe systematically searched PsychINFO and PubMed from November 2000 to April 2010 for empirical studies that reported on original research only; studies in languages other than English, German or French were excluded. Data were extracted using a standardized evidence table with a priori determined headings. Main resultsNineteen studies were identified as eligible for inclusion in our review. We found that sound empirical evidence of the outcomes of public involvement activities in health care remains underdeveloped. The concept and the indicators used to examine and determine outcomes remain poorly specified and inconsistent, as does the reporting of the evidence. There was some evidence for the developmental role of public involvement, such as enhancing awareness, understanding and competencies among lay participants. Evidence for instrumental benefits of public involvement initiatives was less well documented. ConclusionsDespite the growing body of work on public involvement in health-care policy, evidence of its impact remains scarce; thus, firm conclusions about involvement activities that are appropriate and effective for policy development are difficult to draw. However, focus on outcomes risks missing the normative argument that involving the public in the health-care policy process may be seen to be of intrinsic value.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据