Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16436163›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2006

'Taking off the suit': engaging the community in primary health care decision-making.

Elizabeth Anderson, Michael Shepherd, Chris Salisbury

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Coverage and quality of patient participation groups: a mixed-methods analysis of Care Quality Commission reports.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  5. Successes, weaknesses, and recommendations to strengthen primary health care: a scoping review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Patient and public involvement facilitators: Could they be the key to the NHS quality improvement agenda?Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  8. Implementing community participation via interdisciplinary teams in primary care: An Irish case study in practice.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. What is the evidence base for public involvement in health-care policy?: results of a systematic scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015
    Article
  13. Article
  14. From awareness to involvement? A qualitative study of respiratory patients' awareness of health service change.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2011
    Article
  15. Article
  16. The UCLan community engagement and service user support (Comensus) project: valuing authenticity, making space for emergence.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2007
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Elizabeth AndersonAcademic Unit of Primary Health Care, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. e.j.anderson@bristol.ac.uk
Michael Shepherd
Chris Salisbury

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore the process of public involvement in planning primary health care.

backgroundRecent policy in the UK promotes public involvement in planning health but there have been difficulties in engaging communities in the process. Surveys of health service organizations have found that there has been a failure to adapt to new approaches. It has become important to understand why this has occurred if policy initiatives to encourage involvement are to succeed.

designQualitative study. Data collected through individual interviews and focus groups.

settingTwo new primary healthcare developments in deprived areas in Bristol and Weston-Super-Mare.

participantsThirty-six professionals and 23 local residents in Bristol; six professionals and three local residents in Weston-Super-Mare.

resultsThree themes were identified: process, partnership and power. The main findings were that exceptional people with a shared commitment to public involvement were necessary to motivate others and develop partnerships. Local people were drawn into the process and with increased confidence became powerful advocates for their community. Creative and varied methods to involve the public were important in achieving balance between professionals and lay people. However, conflicts over practical decisions arose from a lack of clarity over who had power to influence decisions.

conclusionMost of the participants were enthusiastic about their experience of public involvement in planning primary health care. Features crucial to sustainable involvement included a commitment from leaders within statutory agencies, support over a long period to build the confidence of local people, willingness to use informal approaches that are in tune with local culture, and a recognition of the concerns of both service users and providers.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationDecision MakingPrimary Health CareAdultFemaleFocus GroupsHealth PolicyHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedState MedicineUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID16436163
PMCPMC5060321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.