Developing public sociology through health impact assessment

Evaluating the benefit of early patient and public involvement for product development and testing with small companies

INTRODUCTION

There is a growing understanding of the benefits of patient and public involvement (PPI), and its evaluation, in research. An online version of the CUBE PPI evaluation framework has been developed. We sought to use the CUBE to evaluate the value of early PPI with two small healthcare companies during product development.

METHODS

Contributors were recruited online and had lived experience of either type 1 diabetes or obesity. Two 1-h sessions were run with a company developing a smartphone application to manage diabetes (DEE-EM): one with young people (YP; n = 5) and one with parents (n = 7). Two 1-h sessions were run with a company developing a weight-loss product, both with adults (n = 7 in each session). Sessions were facilitated by an independent University researcher and attended by company representatives, who presented their product. One facilitator led the evaluation of the session by giving a demonstration of the CUBE and asking simple questions in the YP session.

RESULTS

A high proportion of contributors completed the CUBE (80.5% DEE-EM; 93% Oxford Medical Products). Responses were positive to all four CUBE dimensions (in italics). Contributors felt there were diverse ways to contribute to the sessions, and that they had a strong voice to add to the discussion. Balance was achieved regarding whose concerns (public or company) led the agenda, and contributors felt that both companies would make changes based on the discussion. The supportive attitude of both companies resulted in most contributors feeling comfortable participating in PPI sessions with the industry, while recognising the profit-making aspect of their work.

CONCLUSIONS

PPI with small healthcare companies is both feasible and worthwhile. The CUBE framework facilitated the evaluation of the interaction between experts in different knowledge spaces. We provide recommendations for future projects, including considerations of who should participate and the level of implicit endorsement of the product that participation implies.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

People with lived experience of type 1 diabetes or obesity were invited to contribute to one of four PPI sessions, which they then evaluated. One contributor agreed to contribute to the analysis of the evaluation data and interpretation and preparation of the manuscript.

A Qualitative Exploration of Stakeholder Involvement in Decision-Making for Alcohol Treatment and Prevention Services

The concept of providing individuals with a ‘voice’ via stakeholder involvement has been advocated within English health care policy for several decades. Stakeholder involvement encourages people affected by an issue to contribute to planning and decision making regarding treatment and care, inclusive of providers and recipients of care. This paper explores stakeholder involvement in the design and delivery of public health alcohol services. A qualitative case study approach was adopted, including in-depth interviews with 11 alcohol commissioners, 10 alcohol service providers and 6 general practitioners plus three facilitated focus groups with 31 alcohol service users. Findings show that most participants were aware of, and could name, various methods of stakeholder involvement that they had engaged with; however, the extent and impact of stakeholder involvement in decision making are not transparent. It is essential that a deeper understanding is generated of the different roles that stakeholders can play within the entire decision-making process to maximise its utility.

Participatory codesign of patient involvement in a Learning Health System: How can data-driven care be patient-driven care?

BACKGROUND

A Learning Health System (LHS) is a model of how routinely collected health data can be used to improve care, creating 'virtuous cycles' between data and improvement. This requires the active involvement of health service stakeholders, including patients themselves. However, to date, research has explored the acceptability of being 'data donors' rather than considering patients as active contributors. The study aimed to understand how patients should be actively involved in an LHS.

DESIGN

Ten participatory codesign workshops were conducted with eight experienced public contributors using visual, collective and iterative methods. This led contributors to challenge and revise not only the idea of an LHS but also revise the study aims and outputs.

RESULTS

The contributors proposed three exemplar roles for patients in patient-driven LHS, which aligned with the idea of three forms of transparency: informational, participatory and accountability. 'Epistemic injustice' was considered a useful concept to express the risks of an LHS that did not provide active roles to patients (testimonial injustice) and that neglected their experience through collecting data that did not reflect the complexity of their lives (hermeneutic injustice).

DISCUSSION

Patient involvement in an LHS should be 'with and by' patients, not 'about or for'. This requires systems to actively work with and respond to patient feedback, as demonstrated within the study itself by the adaptive approach to responding to contributor questions, to work in partnership with patients to create a 'virtuous alliance' to achieve change.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Public contributors were active partners throughout, and co-authored the paper.

Developing a Framework for Public Involvement in Mathematical and Economic Modelling: Bringing New Dynamism to Vaccination Policy Recommendations

OBJECTIVES

The Mathematical and Economic Modelling for Vaccination and Immunisation Evaluation (MEMVIE) programme aimed to explore, capture and support the potential contribution of the public to mathematical and economic modelling, in order to identify the values that underpin public involvement (PI) in modelling and co-produce a framework that identifies the nature and type of PI in modelling and supports its implementation.

METHODS

We established a PI Reference Group, who worked collaboratively with the academic contributors to create a deliberative knowledge space, which valued different forms of knowledge, expertise and evidence. Together, we explored the key steps of mathematical and economic methods in 21 meetings during 2015-2020. These deliberations generated rich discussion, through which we identified potential points of public contribution and the values that underpin PI in modelling. We iteratively developed a framework to guide future practice of PI in modelling.

RESULTS

We present the MEMVIE Public Involvement Framework in two forms: a short form to summarise key elements, and a long form framework to provide a detailed description of each potential type of public contribution at each stage of the modelling process. At a macro level, the public can contribute to reviewing context, reviewing relevance, assessing data and justifying model choice, troubleshooting, and interpreting and reviewing outcomes and decision making. The underpinning values that drive involvement include the public contributing to the validity of the model, potentially enhancing its relevance, utility and transparency through diverse inputs, and enhancing the credibility, consistency and continuous development through scrutiny, in addition to contextualising the model within a wider societal view.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

PI in modelling is in its infancy. The MEMVIE Framework is the first attempt to identify potential points of collaborative public contribution to modelling, but it requires further evaluation and refinement that we are undertaking in a subsequent study.

Public involvement in research about environmental change and health: A case study

Involving and engaging the public are crucial for effective prioritisation, dissemination and implementation of research about the complex interactions between environments and health. Involvement is also important to funders and policy makers who often see it as vital for building trust and justifying the investment of public money. In public health research, ‘the public’ can seem an amorphous target for researchers to engage with, and the short-term nature of research projects can be a challenge. Technocratic and pedagogical approaches have frequently met with resistance, so public involvement needs to be seen in the context of a history which includes contested truths, power inequalities and political activism. It is therefore vital for researchers and policy makers, as well as public contributors, to share best practice and to explore the challenges encountered in public involvement and engagement. This article presents a theoretically informed case study of the contributions made by the Health and Environment Public Engagement Group to the work of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Environmental Change and Health (HPRU-ECH). We describe how Health and Environment Public Engagement Group has provided researchers in the HPRU-ECH with a vehicle to support access to public views on multiple aspects of the research work across three workshops, discussion of ongoing research issues at meetings and supporting dissemination to local government partners, as well as public representation on the HPRU-ECH Advisory Board. We conclude that institutional support for standing public involvement groups can provide conduits for connecting public with policy makers and academic institutions. This can enable public involvement and engagement, which would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve in individual short-term and unconnected research projects.

Using human epidemiological analyses to support the assessment of the impacts of coal mining on health

The potential impacts of coal mining on health have been addressed by the application of impact assessment methodologies that use the results of qualitative and quantitative analyses to support their conclusions and recommendations. Although human epidemiological analyses can provide the most relevant measures of risk of health outcomes in populations exposed to coal mining by-products, this kind of studies are seldom implemented as part of the impact assessment methods. To review the use of human epidemiological analyses in the methods used to assess the impacts of coal mining, a systematic search in the peer review literature was implemented following the PRISMA protocol. A synthesis analysis identified the methods and the measures used in the selected publications to develop a thematic review and discussion. The major methodological approaches to assess the impacts of coal mining are environmental impact assessment (EIA), health impact assessment (HIA), social impact assessment (SIA) and environmental health impact assessment (EHIA). The measures used to assess the impacts of coal mining on health were classified as the estimates from non-human-based studies such as health risk assessment (HRA) and the measures of risk from human epidemiological analyses. The inclusion of human epidemiological estimates of the populations exposed, especially the general populations in the vicinity of the mining activities, is seldom found in impact assessment applications for coal mining. These methods rather incorporate HRA measures or other sources of evidence such as qualitative analyses and surveys. The implementation of impact assessment methods without estimates of the risk of health outcomes relevant to the potentially exposed populations affects their reliability to address the environmental and health impacts of coal mining. This is particularly important for EIA applications because these are incorporated in regulatory frameworks globally. The effective characterization of the impacts of coal mining on health requires quantitative estimates of the risk, including the risk measures from epidemiological analyses of relevant human health data.

Toward Co-productive Learning? The Exchange Network as Experimental Space

Policy around patient and public involvement (PPI) in the production, design and delivery of health services, and research remains difficult to implement. Consequently, in the UK and elsewhere, recent years have seen a proliferation of toolkits, training, and guidelines for supporting good practice in PPI. However, such instruments rarely engage with the power asymmetries shaping the terrain of collaboration in research and healthcare provision. Toolkits and standards may tell us little about how different actors can be enabled to reflect on and negotiate such asymmetries, nor on how they may effectively challenge what count as legitimate forms of knowledge and expertise. To understand this, we need to turn our attention to the relational dynamic of collaboration itself. In this paper we present the development of the Exchange Network, an experimental learning space deliberately designed to foreground, and work on this relational dynamic in healthcare research and quality improvement. The Network brings together diverse actors (researchers, clinicians, patients, carers, and managers) for structured "events" which are not internal to particular research or improvement projects but subsist at a distance from these. Such events thus temporarily suspend the role allocation, structure, targets, and other pragmatic constraints of such projects. We discuss how Exchange Network participants make use of action learning techniques to reflect critically on such constraints; how they generate a "knowledge space" in which they can rehearse and test a capacity for dialogue: an encounter between potentially conflictual forms of knowledge. We suggest that Exchange Network events, by explicitly attending to the dynamics and tensions of collaboration, may enable participants to collectively challenge organizational norms and expectations and to seed capacities for learning, as well as generate new forms of mutuality and care.

A critical discourse analysis of how public participants and their evidence are presented in health impact assessment reports in Wales

Background

Health impact assessment (HIA) involves assessing in advance how projects affect the health of particular populations. In many countries, HIA has become central to attempts to better integrate health and public participation into policy and decision making. In 2017, HIA gained statutory status in Wales.

This study considers how the public and their evidence are presented within HIA reports and what insights this offers into how public participation is constructed within public health.

Methods

Critical discourse analysis, as described by Fairclough (2003), to analyse seven HIA reports produced in Wales.

Results

Discourses were grouped under four headings. “Consensus and polyphony” relates to the tendency to produce consensus. “Authors and authority” is concerned with how participants and their evidence are shaped by different authorial stances. “Discussions, decisions and planes of action” brings together material on how decision makers are (or are not) brought into contact with evidence in the reports. “Evidence: fragmentation and compression” analyses strategies of abstracting.

Conclusions

This analysis suggests that participants and their evidence are presented in specific ways within HIA reports and that these are particularly shaped by genre, authorial stances and approaches to abstracting and re‐ordering texts. Acknowledging these issues may create opportunities to develop HIA in new directions. Further research to test these conclusions and contribute to a wider “sociology of public health documents” would be of value.

The creative turn in evidence for public health: community and arts-based methodologies

Background

We propose that arts based methodologies can be of value in the production and exchange of evidence in supporting public health related policy. This article reports on a collaborative piece of work resulting from two projects which took place in a former coal mining town in South Wales.

Methods

We used a participatory framework whereby researchers, community members and artists co-produced 'evidence' through the creative arts to inform public policy. We collected a range of data using a number of different techniques, including interviews, focus groups and observation, but also included an extensive range of creative activities.

Results

The data provided a diverse range of perspectives on how people of different ages live their lives. The People's Platform was a performance-based debate which was the culmination of the collaboration. The show involved a series of short performances with time for facilitated discussion in-between. It was felt that the show facilitated knowledge exchange on health and wellbeing issues that are usually difficult to express and understand through traditional forms of evidence.

Conclusion

Whilst arts-based approaches are not free from risk, they offer an alternative form of knowledge as a necessary complement to the range of data available to policy makers.

Evaluating patient and public involvement in health research: from theoretical model to practical workshop

Background

There is a growing literature on evaluating aspects of patient and public involvement (PPI). We have suggested that at the core of successful PPI is the dynamic interaction of different forms of knowledge, notably lay and professional. We have developed a four‐dimensional theoretical framework for understanding these interactions.

Aim

We explore the practical utility of the theoretical framework as a tool for mapping and evaluating the experience of PPI in health services research.

Methods

We conducted three workshops with different PPI groups in which participants were invited to map their PPI experiences on wall charts representing the four dimensions of our framework. The language used to describe the four dimensions was modified to make it more accessible to lay audiences. Participants were given sticky notes to indicate their own positions on the different dimensions and to write explanatory comments if they wished. Participants’ responses were then discussed and analysed as a group.

Results

The three groups were distinctive in their mapped responses suggesting different experiences in relation to having a strong or weak voice in their organization, having few or many ways of getting involved, addressing organizational or public concerns and believing that the organization was willing to change or not.

Discussion

The framework has practical utility for mapping and evaluating PPI interactions and is sensitive to differences in PPI experiences within and between different organizations. The workshops enabled participants to reflect collaboratively on their experiences with a view to improving PPI experiences and planning for the future.

Collaborative healthcare remodelling through sequential simulation: a patient and front-line staff perspective

Background

The Department of health funded an initiative to pioneer new approaches that would create a more integrated form of care.

Local problem

In order to receive funding, local Clinical Commissioning Groups were required to engage a range of stakeholders in a practical approach that generated the development of an integrated model of care.

Intervention

Two sequential simulation (SqS) workshops comprising 65 and 93 participants, respectively, were designed using real patient scenarios from the locality, covering areas of general practice, community health and adult social care. Workshops were attended by a diverse group of stakeholders. The first workshop addressed current care pathways and the second modelled ideal care pathways generated from the data obtained at the first workshop.

Methods

Discussions were captured through video recording, field-notes and pre and post questionnaires. Data was collated, transcribed and analysed through a combination of descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.

Results

The questionnaires revealed that attendees strongly agreed that they had had an opportunity to contribute to all discussions and raise questions, concerns and ideas (100%). Pre and post knowledge of current and new models of care was vastly improved. The opportunity to share information and to network was valued, with the SqS approach seen as breaking professional barriers (100%).

Conclusions

Simulation can be used as a tool to engage stakeholders in designing integrated models of care. The systematic data collection from the diverse ideas generated also allows for a much-needed ‘ear’ to those providing the solutions, as well as a legitimate and balanced perspective.

Engaging patients and clinicians through simulation: rebalancing the dynamics of care

This paper proposes simulation-based enactment of care as an innovative and fruitful means of engaging patients and clinicians to create collaborative solutions to healthcare issues. This use of simulation is a radical departure from traditional transmission models of education and training. Instead, we frame simulation as co-development, through which professionals, patients and publics share their equally (though differently) expert perspectives. The paper argues that a process of participatory design can bring about new insights and that simulation offers understandings that cannot easily be expressed in words. Drawing on more than a decade of our group's research on simulation and engagement, the paper summarises findings from studies relating to clinician-patient collaboration and proposes a novel approach to address the current need. The paper outlines a mechanism whereby pathways of care are jointly created, shaped, tested and refined by professionals, patients, carers and others who are affected and concerned by clinical care.

Between disruption and continuity: challenges in maintaining the 'biographical we' when caring for a partner with a severe, chronic illness

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive illness that changes the lives of patients and their spouses dramatically. The aim of this paper is to show how spouses of COPD patients integrate their tasks as informal carers with their role as spouses and the tensions and challenges involved in this. The study draws on qualitative interviews with spouses of COPD patients, recruited from the patient pool of ambulatory pulmonary services of two hospitals in Oslo, Norway. The spouses described their great efforts to re-establish normality and continuity in their everyday lives. Accomplishing this was a delicate process because they faced several dilemmas in this work. They balanced the need to sustain the independence and integrity of both parties against the need to ensure safety and deal with the progression of the illness. We propose 'biographical we' as a concept that can highlight the great effort spouses put into establishing a sense of continuity in their lives. In times when healthcare policy involves mobilising informal caregiving resources, an awareness of the complexity of caregiving relationships is crucial when developing appropriate support for informal carers.

Reducing health inequalities: the use of Health Impact Assessment on Rural Areas

Health is greatly influenced by social, economic and political determinants. Accordingly, decisions influencing people's health do not concern only health services or 'health policies', but decisions in many different policy areas have their influence on these health determinants. Health Impact assessment (HIA) is a predictive tool to support decisions in policy-making. The ultimate goal of this framework is to maximize health gains and, as far as possible, to reduce health inequalities. HIA presents a commitment to ensure that the rural dimension is routinely considered as part of the making and implementing of policy. The aim of this paper is to review the use of HIA on rural areas. Conclusions: HIA shows its great potential to contribute to local authority decision making. The use of HIA was identified in 2 key areas: strategic planning (sustainable development, EU Common Agricultural Policy, Federal Farm Bill, land-use planning work); and in specific smaller scale projects (rural health service redesign proposal, accessing healthy food, transport, health care disparities, etc.).

Theoretical directions for an emancipatory concept of patient and public involvement

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is now firmly embedded in the policies of the Department of Health in England. This article commences with a review of the changing structures of PPI in English health and social care, largely in terms of their own explicit rationales, using that as a spring board for the development of a general theoretical framework. Arguing that all democratic states face major dilemmas in seeking to meet conflicting demands and expectations for involvement, we identify the diverse and sometimes conflicting cultural and political features embedded in current models of involvement in England, in a context of rapid delegitimation of the wider political system. We identify some of the major inherent weaknesses of a monolithic, single-track model of patient and public involvement in the management and running of health and social care systems. Although the mechanisms and methods for delivering this may vary we suggest the model remains fundamentally the same. We also suggest why the current structures are unlikely to provide an effective response either to the pluralism of values, ideologies and social groups engaged in the sector or to the valuing of lay knowledge which could potentially sustain the social networks essential for effective participation and service improvement. The article proposes a four dimensional framework for analysing the nature of PPI. These dimensions, it is argued, provide the co-ordinates along which new 'knowledge spaces' for PPI could be constructed. These knowledge spaces could facilitate and support the emergence of social networks of knowledgeable actors capable of engaging with professionals on equal terms and influencing service provision.