Conklin Annalijn, Morris Zoë, Nolte Ellen
RAND Europe, and MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge , Cambridge, UK.
Health Expect. 2015 Apr;18(2):153-65. doi: 10.1111/hex.12038. Epub 2012 Dec 18.
Public 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.
To review the peer-reviewed empirical evidence on outcomes of public involvement in health-care policy.
We 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.
Nineteen 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.
Despite 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.
公众参与医疗保健政策已被倡导为增强卫生系统响应能力的一种手段,但其影响的证据却难以确定。
回顾关于公众参与医疗保健政策结果的同行评审实证证据。
我们于2000年11月至2010年4月在PsychINFO和PubMed数据库中系统检索仅报告原创研究的实证研究;排除英语、德语或法语以外语言的研究。使用带有预先确定标题的标准化证据表提取数据。
19项研究被确定符合纳入我们综述的条件。我们发现,关于公众参与医疗保健活动结果的可靠实证证据仍不充分。用于检查和确定结果的概念和指标仍未明确界定且不一致,证据报告情况也是如此。有一些证据表明公众参与具有发展作用,比如提高非专业参与者的意识、理解和能力。关于公众参与举措的工具性益处的证据记录较少。
尽管关于公众参与医疗保健政策的研究越来越多,但其影响的证据仍然稀少;因此,难以就对政策制定合适且有效的参与活动得出确凿结论。然而,关注结果可能会忽略规范性观点,即让公众参与医疗保健政策过程本身可能具有内在价值。