Forbat Liz, Hubbard Gill, Kearney Nora
Cancer Care Research Centre, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
J Clin Nurs. 2009 Sep;18(18):2547-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02519.x. Epub 2009 Jan 8.
This paper explores the range of models of involvement which are drawn upon in an empirical study and which are invoked in the literature and policy. The results and discussion of the study help to excavate and explore the muddle of conceptualisations of involvement and how this leads to difficulties for practitioners, patients and managers in implementing the relevant policy.
Patient and public involvement has developed an important profile internationally within health and social care policy. However, its importance as a rhetorical device has not been accompanied by adequate developments in how it is operationalised.
Cross-sectional study, with an intervention conducted at three sites, and non-intervention measures taken at two control sites.
This paper draws on an empirical study of involvement. Focus groups were conducted with a lung cancer team and people affected by cancer at five health boards across Scotland. Chief executives of each of these five health boards also took part in individual interviews. Participants were asked to describe their ideas of what involvement is and their application of it.
A range of ways of conceptualising involvement were apparent. Few of these moved beyond the use of patient satisfaction questionnaires. At times, troubling understandings were articulated, for example, using public meetings to communicate decisions about service closures to the public.
The slow escalation of involvement is in part because of the myriad ways in which it is conceptualised and discussed. Thus, we conclude that one of the greatest barriers to truly integrating patient involvement into health services, policy and research is the conceptual muddle with which involvement is articulated, understood and actioned. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE. Clinicians need to be supported to seek clarity in the use and operationalisation of involvement if the agenda is to be truly adopted and strengthened.
本文探讨了在一项实证研究中所采用的以及文献和政策中提及的参与模式范围。该研究的结果与讨论有助于挖掘和探究参与概念的混乱状况,以及这如何给从业者、患者和管理人员在实施相关政策时带来困难。
患者和公众参与在国际上已在卫生和社会护理政策中占据重要地位。然而,其作为一种修辞手段的重要性并未伴随着在实施方式上的充分发展。
横断面研究,在三个地点进行干预,在两个对照地点采取非干预措施。
本文借鉴了一项关于参与的实证研究。在苏格兰五个卫生委员会,对肺癌治疗团队和癌症患者进行了焦点小组访谈。这五个卫生委员会的首席执行官也参与了个人访谈。参与者被要求描述他们对参与的理解以及参与的应用情况。
出现了一系列对参与的概念化方式。其中很少有超越使用患者满意度调查问卷的。有时,会表达出令人不安的理解,例如,通过公众会议向公众传达关于关闭服务的决定。
参与的缓慢升级部分是由于其概念化和讨论方式的多样性。因此,我们得出结论,将患者参与真正融入卫生服务、政策和研究的最大障碍之一,是参与在表达、理解和实施过程中存在的概念混乱。与临床实践的相关性。如果要真正采纳并强化这一议程,临床医生需要得到支持,以明确参与的使用和实施方式。