Anderson de Cuevas Rachel, Nylén Lotta, Burström Bo, Whitehead Margaret
Department of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
BMJ Open. 2018 Apr 20;8(4):e019805. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019805.
Public involvement in research is considered good practice by European funders; however, evidence of its research impact is sparse, particularly in relation to large-scale epidemiological research.
To explore what difference public and stakeholder involvement made to the interpretation of findings from an evaluation of a natural policy experiment to influence the wider social determinants of health: 'Flexicurity'.
Stockholm County, Sweden.
Members of the public from different occupational groups represented by blue-collar and white-collar trade union representatives. Also, members of three stakeholder groups: the Swedish national employment agency; an employers' association and politicians sitting on a national labour market committee. Total: 17 participants.
Qualitative study of process and outcomes of public and stakeholder participation in four focused workshops on the interpretation of initial findings from the flexicurity evaluation.
New insights from participants benefiting the interpretation of our research findings or conceptualisation of future research.
Participants sensed more drastic and nuanced change in the Swedish welfare system over recent decades than was evident from our literature reviews and policy analysis. They also elaborated hidden developments in the Swedish labour market that were increasingly leading to 'insiders' and 'outsiders', with differing experiences and consequences for financial and job security. Their explanation of the differential effects of the various collective agreements for different occupational groups was new and raised further potential research questions. Their first-hand experience provided new insights into how changes to the social protection system were contributing to the increasing trends in poverty among unemployed people with limiting long-standing illness. The politicians provided further reasoning behind some of the policy changes and their intended and unintended consequences. These insights fed into subsequent reporting of the flexicurity evaluation results, as well as the conceptualisation of new research that could be pursued in a future programme.
欧洲资助者认为公众参与研究是一种良好的做法；然而，其对研究影响的证据却很少，尤其是在大规模流行病学研究方面。
探讨公众和利益相关者的参与对一项旨在影响更广泛健康社会决定因素的自然政策实验（“灵活保障”）评估结果解读产生了何种差异。
瑞典斯德哥尔摩郡。
由蓝领和白领工会代表代表的不同职业群体的公众成员。此外，还有三个利益相关者群体的成员：瑞典国家就业机构；一个雇主协会以及在国家劳动力市场委员会任职的政治家。总计17名参与者。
对公众和利益相关者参与关于灵活保障评估初步结果解读的四个重点研讨会的过程和结果进行定性研究。
参与者的新见解有助于对我们研究结果的解读或对未来研究的概念化。
参与者感觉到瑞典福利体系在近几十年发生的变化比我们的文献综述和政策分析中所显示的更为剧烈和细微。他们还阐述了瑞典劳动力市场中隐藏的发展趋势，这些趋势日益导致“内部人”和“外部人”的出现，对财务和工作保障产生了不同的经历和后果。他们对不同职业群体各种集体协议差异影响的解释是新颖的，并提出了进一步潜在的研究问题。他们的第一手经验为社会保护体系的变化如何导致患有长期疾病的失业者贫困加剧的趋势提供了新见解。政治家们对一些政策变化及其预期和非预期后果提供了进一步的理由。这些见解被纳入了灵活保障评估结果的后续报告，以及未来项目中可开展的新研究的概念化过程。
