ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2017
Whose voices? Patient and public involvement in clinical commissioning.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying and selecting outcome measures for the children and families domestic abuse core outcome set.Frontiers in sociology · 2026Article
- Commissioning and co-production in health and care services in the United Kingdom and Ireland: An exploratory literature review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Review
- 'It is still coming from the centre and coming out': The material conditions adding to over-bureaucratised patient and public involvement for commissioning health and care in England.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- The impact of patient and public involvement on COVID-19 immunology research: experiences from the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Using social media for patient and public involvement and engagement in health research: The process and impact of a closed Facebook group.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- A Qualitative Exploration of Stakeholder Involvement in Decision-Making for Alcohol Treatment and Prevention Services.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Patients as partners in health research: A scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- 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 · 2020Article
- Patient and public involvement in priority-setting decisions in England's Transforming NHS: An interview study with Clinical Commissioning Groups in South London sustainability transformation partnerships.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019Article
- Re-orienting health systems through a commissioning approach: finding solutions for improved consumer engagement.Health research policy and systems · 2019Review
- Toward Co-productive Learning? The Exchange Network as Experimental Space.Frontiers in sociology · 2019Review
- Variations in stakeholders' priorities and views on randomisation and funding decisions in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: An exploratory study.Health science reports · 2018Article
- The state of health services partnering with consumers: evidence from an online survey of Australian health services.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Finding and engaging patients and the public to work collaboratively on an acute infection microbiology research public panel.Research involvement and engagement · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis paper aims to explore patient and public representation in a NHS clinical commissioning group and how this is experienced by staff and lay members involved.
backgroundPatient and public involvement is believed to foster greater public representativeness in the development and delivery of health care services. However, there is widespread debate about what representation is or what it should be. Questions arise about the different constructions of representation and the representativeness of patients and the public in decision-making structures and processes.
designEthnographic, two-phase study involving twenty-four observations across two types of clinical commissioning group meetings with patient and public involvement, fourteen follow-up interviews with NHS staff and lay members, and a focus group with five lay members.
resultsPerceptions of what constitutes legitimate representativeness varied between respondents, ranging from representing an individual patient experience to reaching large numbers of people. Consistent with previous studies, there was a lack of clarity about the role of lay members in the work of the clinical commissioning group.
conclusionsUnlike previous studies, it was lay members, not staff, who raised concerns about their representativeness and legitimacy. Although the clinical commissioning group provides resources to support patient and public involvement, there continues to be a lack of clarity about roles and scope for impact. Lay members are still some way from constituting a powerful voice at the table.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.