Search

The community participation literature has produced numerous frameworks to guide practice and evaluation of community participation strategies in the health sector. These frameworks are useful starting points for differentiating the approaches for involving people in planning and decision-making for health services, but have been critiqued for being too generic and ignoring that community participation is highly contextual and situational. Health service organizations across Canada and internationally have begun to respond to address this limitation by developing more context-specific community participation frameworks; however, such frameworks do not exist for Ontario Community Health Centres (CHCs)-local primary health care organizations with a mandate to engage marginalized groups in planning and decision-making for health services. We conducted a series of focus groups with staff members from four Ontario CHCs to: (1) examine the factors that would influence their use of a generic framework for community participation with marginalized populations; and (2) improve the "context-specificity" of this framework, to enhance its relevance to CHCs. Participants described the difficulty of organizing the contextual, multi-faceted and situational process of community participation that they experienced with marginalized populations into a single framework, which led them to question the value of using frameworks as a resource for guiding the design, implementation and evaluation of their community participation initiatives. Instead, participants revealed that tacit knowledge, in the form of professional and personal experience and local knowledge of a marginalized population, had a greater influence on guiding participation activities in Ontario CHCs. Our findings suggest that tacit knowledge is an essential feature of community participation practice and requires further exploration regarding its role in the community participation field., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The concept of public involvement use is not well-defined in the literature. Previous research studies have provided brief accounts of how public involvement may influence health policy, but have not detailed the internal dynamics and process through which it is actually used in the policy process. The study objective is to examine and clarify the concept and process of public involvement use in health policy decision-making. Using qualitative concept analysis methods, we reviewed the literature on the use of public involvement and conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants who have theoretical and/or practical insights on public involvement and its use in policy decision-making. Our findings are organized around interrelated questions that animate how the concept of use is understood, interpreted, and operationalized. In asking, "How is 'use' perceived in relation to health policy decision-making?" meanings are constructed for the concept by identifying differences and drawing connections between "use" and related terms. In asking "How would one know if public involvement was used in health policy decision-making?" our findings weigh in on the act of listening as a precursor to use, the ways in which use is mediated, and responses to the input obtained from public involvement processes as signals of use. These findings are a first step toward improving conceptual clarity about what public involvement use means, how it is understood and interpreted by relevant actors in the public involvement and public policy fields, and how it might be operationalized. We expect our findings to be particularly useful for public involvement practitioners who are often confronted with questions from public involvement participants regarding how their input will be used in health policy decision-making., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Models that describe the key features and intended effects of specific knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) interventions are much less prominent than models that provide a more general understanding of KTE. Our aim was to develop a model in order to describe the key features and intended effects of deliberative dialogues used as a KTE strategy and to understand how deliberative dialogues can support evidence-informed policymaking. By using critical interpretive synthesis, we identified 17 papers representing four fields of enquiry and integrated our findings into a model. The key features described in the model are: 1) an appropriate (i.e., conducive to the particular dialogue) meeting environment; 2) an appropriate mix of participants; and, 3) an appropriate use of research evidence. These features combine to create three types of intended effects: 1) short-term individual-level; 3) medium-term community/organizational-level; and, 3) long-term system-level. The concept of capacity building helps to explain the relationship between features and effects. The model is a useful contribution to the KTE field because it is a practical tool that could be used to guide the development and evaluation of deliberative dialogues in order to understand more about achieving particular outcomes in relation to specific issues or contexts., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

There is a growing literature examining the involvement of citizens in health policymaking. While determining what form such involvement should take and who should participate is of particular interest to policymakers and researchers, the current ontological understanding of what a citizen is suffers from "lightness." This essay thus seeks to provide more depth by shedding light on the ways in which individuals define what "being" a citizen means for them and choose to embody or not such a role. Inspired by a four-year ethnographic study of a Canadian science/policy network in genetics, which integrated citizens into its operation, this paper provides four biographical sketches that portray the complexity and richness of what these individuals were "made of." We reflect on how they sought to make sense of their participation in the network by drawing on a repertoire of cultural, relational and cognitive resources and on their lived experience. Their capacity to "be" a participant and to be acknowledged as such by the others was shaped by their values and interests and by the contributions they sought to realise throughout their participation. Our discussion suggests that the quest for the "ordinary" citizen is misleading. Instead, acknowledging the sociological concreteness of citizenship and understanding how it may be embodied and exercised should be a key focus in public involvement theory and practice in health care., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Despite a growing consensus that ethical and social values should be addressed in health technology assessment (HTA) processes, there exist a variety of methods for doing so. There is growing interest in involving citizens in policy development to ensure that decisions are legitimate, and reflect the broad social values of the public. We sought to bring these issues together by employing a participatory approach to elicit ethical and social values in HTA. Our primary objective was to elicit a set of ethical and social values from citizens that could be used to guide Ontario's HTA evidentiary review and appraisal process. A secondary objective was to explore the feasibility of using participatory approaches to elicit these values. A 14-person Citizens' Reference Panel on Health Technologies was established to provide input to the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee in developing its recommendations. A mixed methods approach was used where informed, deliberative discussions were combined with pre- and post-questionnaires, which assessed the relative importance of various ethical and social values as well as their stability over time. Over the course of five meetings, panel members progressed toward the identification of a set of core values -universal access, choice and quality care. These values were consistently prioritized as the core values that should be considered in the evaluation of health technologies and ensuing recommendations. Sustained and deliberative methods, like a citizens' panel, offer a promising approach for eliciting ethical and social values into HTA., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

There have been calls in recent years for greater public involvement in health technology assessment (HTA). Yet the concept of public involvement is poorly articulated and little attention has been paid to the context of HTA agencies. This article investigates how public involvement is conceptualized in the HTA agency environment. Using qualitative concept analysis methods, we reviewed the HTA literature and the websites of HTA agencies and conducted semi-structured interviews with informants in Canada, Denmark, and the United Kingdom. Our analysis reveals that HTA agencies' role as bridges or boundary organizations situated at the frontier of research and policymaking causes the agencies to struggle with the idea of public involvement. The HTA community is concerned with conceptualizing public involvement in such a way as to meet scientific and methodological standards without neglecting its responsibilities to healthcare policymakers. We offer a conceptual tool for analyzing the nature of public involvement across agencies, characterizing different domains, levels of involvement, and types of publics., (Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

To resolve tensions among competing sources of evidence and public expectations, health-care managers and policy makers are turning more than ever to involve the public in a wide range of decisions. Yet efforts to use research evidence to inform public involvement decisions are hampered by an absence of rigorous public participation evaluation research. In particular, greater rigour in exploring the roles played by different contextual variables--such as characteristics of the issue of interest, the culture of the sponsoring organization and attributes of the decision being made--is needed. Using a comparative quasi-experimental design, we assessed the performance of a generic public participation method implemented in 5 Canadian regionalized health settings between 2001 and 2004. Participant and decision-maker perspectives were assessed and, through direct observation, the roles exerted by contextual variables over the public involvement processes were documented and analysed. Our findings demonstrate that a generic public participation method can be implemented in a variety of contexts and with considerable success. Context exerts fostering and inhibiting influences that contribute to more (or less) successful implementation. Public participation practitioners are encouraged to pay careful attention to the types of issues and decisions for which they are seeking public input. Sufficient organizational resources and commitment to the goals of the public participation process are also required. Attention to these contextual attributes and their influence on the design and outcomes of public participation processes is as important as choosing the "right" public participation mechanism.

News media effects on their audiences are complex. Four commonly cited effects are: informing audiences; agenda-setting; framing; and persuading. The release in autumn 2002 of two reports on options for reforming Canada's healthcare system attracted widespread media attention. We explored the potential for each of the four media effects by examining Canadian newspaper representation of this healthcare policy debate. Clippings were gathered from regional and national newspapers. Two data collection methodologies were employed: the first involved two staggered "constructed weeks" designed to capture thematic news framing styles; the second collected "intensive" or episodic coverage immediately following the report releases. Health reform articles with a financing and/or delivery focus were included. Using a codebook, articles were coded to track article characteristics, tone, healthcare sector and reform themes, and key actors. A greater quantity of episodic (n=341 clippings) versus thematic coverage (n=77) was documented. Coverage type did not vary significantly by newspaper, reporting source (e.g., staff reporter versus staff editorialist) or article type (e.g., news versus letter). Thematic articles were significantly shorter in length compared to episodic clippings. Episodic coverage tended to have a positive tone, while thematic coverage ranged in tone. Most coverage was general in scope. Sector-specific coverage favoured physician and hospital care--the two providers accorded privileged financing arrangements under Canada's universal, provincially administered health-insurance plans. Coverage of healthcare financing arrangements favoured broad discussions of publicly financed healthcare, federal-provincial governmental relations, and the Canada Health Act that governs provincial plans. Governmental actors and the political institutions that they represent were the dominant actors. Professional associations were also visible, but played a less dominant role. Given its non-specific scope, it is unclear how informative this coverage was. The large quantity and short duration of the episodic coverage, and the preponderance of governmental actors, suggests these newspapers acted as conduits for the policy agenda. Differences in framing styles were observed by coverage type, newspaper, reporting source, article length and type of article. Finally, the dominance of governmental actors provided these actors with numerous opportunities to persuade the public.

Many researchers hope to see the best available research evidence used in policy-making to address important public problems. However, policy often appears to be based on anything but the research evidence, as the problem of conduct disorder (or severe antisocial behaviour in children) shows. In Canada, few children receive effective prevention or treatment programs, and incarceration is overused, despite evidence that it is ineffective and potentially harmful. Using the example of conduct disorder, we investigated why policy-making has not reflected the research evidence, examining research use in the context of competing influences on the policy process. Qualitative methods were used to analyze data from interviews with thirty-two politicians and senior civil servants. Our allegiance to rationality wavered as we listened to policy-makers who contended with the inherent ambiguity in the policy process. They told us that they managed institutional constraints including fragmentation across levels and sectors of government, and the long-term effects of fiscal restraint. They also reconciled the competing interests of stakeholders' priorities, the public's response to negative events involving children and the media's role in shaping this response. Ideas about youth violence were morally charged, but policy-makers remained committed to improving children's lives. Day-to-day, policy-makers obtained most of their information internally and informally. Research evidence was valued and used, but as just one source of ideas and information among many. In this environment of ambiguity, creative civil servants formed partnerships with trusted researchers in order to change policy. Our findings suggest that the use of research evidence in policy-making could be enhanced if researchers learned about the competing influences on the policy process, formed research-policy partnerships, challenged the incentives within research institutions, and engaged in public debates about important problems, such as child antisocial behaviour.

In Canada, home care is growing rapidly. Each province takes a somewhat different approach to its delivery. Ontario uses a competitive bidding model to award contracts to community agencies that bid for service delivery rights. Contracts are to be awarded based on quality and price. However, the attributes thought to contribute to high quality, such as continuity of care, are not clearly defined and are not measured. We sought to identify factors that were important to experiencing continuity of care in home care. We interviewed home care clients and their caregivers, workers in the home care system (nursing and homemaking service providers, case managers) and physicians whose patients use home care. During in-depth interviews with these key stakeholders, they described the conditions that led to continuity of care in home care. Service providers and case managers were also asked about the types of clients who need a high level of care continuity. Care that is experienced as running smoothly, that responds to clients' needs and requires no special effort for clients to maintain, was seen as having continuity. The attributes of care experienced as facilitating continuity could be grouped under two dimensions of care-managing care (care planning, monitoring and review; and care coordination) and direct service provision (uninterrupted service delivery; consistent, appropriate knowledge and skills; ongoing accurate observation; trusting relationship between service provider and client/caregiver; rapport among team members; and consistent timing). Different stakeholders emphasized different attributes of care as most important to continuity. Clients included consistency of timing of service delivery while rarely mentioning care management issues. They emphasized the importance of consistent knowledge and skills in the workers and trusting relationships as important to experiencing care continuity. The description of attributes of continuity of home care that emerged from this study is compared to definitions found in the nursing, mental health and primary care literature.

A common thread weaving through the current public participation debate is the need for new approaches that emphasize two-way interaction between decision makers and the public as well as deliberation among participants. Increasingly complex decision making processes require a more informed citizenry that has weighed the evidence on the issue, discussed and debated potential decision options and arrived at a mutually agreed upon decision or at least one by which all parties can abide. We explore the recent fascination with deliberative methods for public involvement first by examining their origins within democratic theory, and then by focusing on the experiences with deliberative methods within the health sector. In doing so, we answer the following questions "What are deliberative methods and why have they become so popular? What are their potential contributions to the health sector?" We use this critical review of the literature as the basis for developing general principles that can be used to guide the design and evaluation of public involvement processes for the health-care sector in particular.

There are a number of impulses towards public participation in health care decision making including instrumentalist, communitarian, educative and expressive impulses and the desire for increased accountability. There has, however, been little research looking systematically at the public's preferences for being involved in particular types of rationing decisions, nor indeed, has there been a critical examination of the degree of involvement desired by the public. The research reported here uses findings from focus groups and in-depth interviews to explore these questions. Eight focus groups were conducted with a total of 57 informants, four amongst randomly selected members of the public and four with informants from health and non-health related organisations. Nineteen interviews were conducted to allow the elaboration of focus group comments, to probe views more deeply and to pursue emerging themes. The findings show variations in the willingness of members of the public to be involved in health care decisions and consistency across the different forms of the public as represented by the focus groups with randomly selected citizens and pre-existing organisations. There was a strong desire in all the groups for the public to be involved both at the system and programme levels, with much less willingness to be involved at the individual level. At the system and programme levels informants generally favoured consultation, without responsibility for decisions, but with the guarantee that their contribution would be heard and that decisions taken following consultation would be explained. At the patient level informants felt that the public should participate only by setting criteria for deciding between potential beneficiaries of treatment. The public has much to contribute, particularly at the system and programme levels, to supplement the inputs of health care professionals.

Approaches to involving the public in local health care decision making processes (and analyses of these approaches) have tended to treat participation and publics uniformly in search of the ideal method of involving the public or providing the same opportunities for public participation regardless of differing socio-economic, cultural, insitutional or political contexts within which decisions are made. Less attention has been given to the potential for various contextual factors to influence both the methods employed and the outcomes of such community decision-making processes. The paper explores the role that context (three sets of contextual influences more specifically) plays in shaping community decision-making processes. Results from case studies of public participation in local health-care decision making in four geographic communities in Ontario are presented. During the study period, two of these communities were actively involved in health services restructuring processes while one had recently completed its process and the fourth had not yet engaged in one. Several themes emerge from the case studies regarding the identification and role of contextual influences in differentially shaping participation in local health care decision-making. These include the propensity for communities with different social and structural attributes to engage in different "styles" of participation; the importance attached to "community values" in shaping both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of participation: the role of health councils, local government and inter-organizational collaboration as participation "enablers"; and the politicization of participation that occurs around contentious issues such as hospital closures.