Search

Background: Community engagement is seen as key to citizen‐centred and sustainable healthcare systems as involving citizens in the designing, implementation and improvement of services and policies is thought to tailor these more closely to communities' own needs and experiences. Organizations have struggled to reach out to and involve disadvantaged citizens. This paper examines how if, why, and when low‐income citizens wish to be involved. Methods: For this qualitative realist case‐study, 19 interviews (one dyad) were held with (20) low‐income citizens in two Dutch municipalities. Additionally, the results were discussed with a reference panel consisting of professionals and citizens to enrich the results and to ensure the results had face validity. Results: The results showed four different ways in which low‐income citizens wished to be involved: (a) in a practical/volunteer way; (b) as a buddy; (c) as a lay expert; (d) not involved at all. The factors affecting citizens' interest and capacity to participate include citizens' own experiences of the services they access and their personal situations, e.g. their mental or physical health, extent of financial crisis, family situation, home environment. None of the interviewees was currently involved, but all had ideas for improving health(care) services and policies. Citizens' experiences of the services they accessed acted as a motivator for some to be involved as they wanted to ensure others would not have the same struggles, while for others their own needs and an apathetic system remained too high a barrier. To enable involvement, citizens need continued support for their own health(care) and financial situation, better communication and accessibility from services, practical support (e.g., training and bus passes) and recognition for their input (e.g., monetary compensation). Conclusion: The study shows that citizens' experiences of the services they accessed influenced if and how they wanted to be involved with health and care services. Despite the fact that all participants had shared solid ideas for improving services and policies, they were hindered by a bureaucratic, impersonal and inaccessible system. Organizations seem to underestimate the required investments to reach out to low‐income citizens and the support required to ensure their involvement. Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Study: Citizens as well as PPI organizations were members of the reference panel who helped formulate the research questions and recruitment strategy. The local reference panel also helped to interpret and refine the initial findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective This paper examines how negative experiences with the health-care system create a lack of confidence in receiving medical care in seven countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Methods The empirical analysis is based on data from the Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey 2007, with nationally representative samples of adults aged 18 and over. For the analysis of the experience of cost barriers and confidence in receiving medical care, we conducted pairwise comparisons of group percentages as well as country-wise multivariate logistic regression models. Results Individuals who have experienced cost barriers show a significantly lower level of confidence in receiving safe and quality medical care than those who have not. This effect is most pronounced in the United States, where people who have foregone necessary treatment because of costs are four times as likely to lack confidence as individuals without the experience of cost barriers (adjusted odds ratio 4.00). In New Zealand, Germany, and Canada, individuals with the experience of cost barriers are twice as likely to report low confidence compared with those without this experience (adjusted odds ratios of 1.95, 2.19 and 2.24, respectively). In the Netherlands and UK, cost barriers are only a marginal phenomenon. Conclusions The fact that the experience of financial barriers considerably lowers confidence indicates that financial incentives, such as private co-payments, have a negative effect on overall public support and therefore on the legitimacy of health-care systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsRealist evaluation (RE) is an emerging and promising research approach for evaluating integrated care, addressing what works, how, for whom, and in what circumstances.The rich philosophical foundation of RE, critical realism, can help to systematically unravel an integrated care program's initial theory prior to implementation, as a first step within RE.RE can be considered a robust methodological asset in integrated care research by facilitating a deeper level of insight into program functioning than traditional forms of evaluation do and by shaping a realist‐informed monitoring and evaluation process. Context: The complexity of integrated care and the need for transferable evaluation insights ask for a suitable evaluation paradigm. Realist evaluation (RE), underpinned by the philosophy of critical realism, is a theory‐driven approach that addresses what works, how, for whom, and in what circumstances. The current study illustrates the process needed for RE's first step: eliciting the initial program theory (IPT). The TARGET program, a Dutch primary care initiative to facilitate more integrated care for chronically ill patients, i.e., care that is efficient, tailored, and holistic, was taken as a real‐world case. Methods: An RE approach informed the phased IPT elicitation: (1) identifying an abstract theory framework; (2) formulating the preliminary IPT, building on the abstract theory and informed by previous scientific studies that underpin TARGET; and (3) refining the preliminary IPT, informed by RE expert interviews (n = 7). An RE heuristic tool, specifying the interplay between intervention‐context‐actors‐mechanisms‐outcomes (ICAMO) and retroductive reasoning, was applied to synthesize the underlying theory of individual TARGET components into TARGET's IPT. Findings: Separate but related IPTs were identified for the two main types of actors involved in TARGET: primary care professionals (PCPs) and patients. For both actors, two sorts of mechanisms are assumed to be activated by TARGET, which—via instrumental outcomes—contribute to long‐term quadruple aim targets. The first is confidence to enhance PCPs' person‐centered conversational skills and to increase patients' active engagement in TARGET. The second is mutual trust, between PCPs and patients and between PCPs and their network partners. A supportive context is assumed crucial for activating these mechanisms—for example, sufficient resources to invest in integrated care. Conclusions: Although the IPT elicitation process is time intensive and requires a mind shift, it facilitates a deeper insight into program functioning than accommodated by the prevailing experimental designs in integrated care. Furthermore, the design of a realist‐informed evaluation process can be informed by the IPT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate what influences patients' health care decisions and what the implications are for the provision of information on the quality of health care providers to patients.Data Sources/study Setting: Dutch patient samples between November 2006 and February 2007.Study Design: Discrete choice experiments were conducted in three patient groups to explore what influences choice for health care providers.Data Collection: Data were obtained from 616 patients with knee arthrosis, 368 patients with chronic depression, and 421 representatives of patients with Alzheimer's disease.Principal Findings: The three patients groups chose health care providers on a different basis. The most valued attributes were effectiveness and safety (knee arthrosis); continuity of care and relationship with the therapist (chronic depression); and expertise (Alzheimer's disease). Preferences differed between subgroups, mainly in relation to patients' choice profiles, severity of disease, and some background characteristics.Conclusions: This study showed that there is substantial room for (quality) information about health care providers in patients' decision processes. This information should be tailor-made, targeting specific patient segments, because different actors and factors play a part in their search and selection process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the study on the perceived efficacy and barriers in consultation participation, interest in communication support, and the correlation of perceived efficacy and efficacy among chronic patients. Methods for gathering data on the barriers to communication support and participation through Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Provider Interaction scale was provided. Results were outlined and conclude the confidence on medical interaction among chronically ill patients.