ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018
The impact of status and social context on health service co-design: an example from a collaborative improvement initiative in UK primary care.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies to increase participant diversity in pediatric research: a systematic review.Pediatric research · 2026Pooled it
- 2021 EULAR recommendations for the implementation of self-management strategies in patients with inflammatory arthritis.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2021Guideline
- A Nurse-Led Family Support Intervention for Families Living With Cancer: An Experience-Based Co-Design Study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Facilitator and Barrier to Health Information System Use from Health Professionals Perspective: A Scoping Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Review
- Subjective social status, health and well-being among older adults in China and South Korea: a cross-sectional analysis.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Potentials and challenges of using co-design in health services research in low- and middle-income countries.Global health research and policy · 2023Article
- Co-designing implementation strategies to promote remote physical activity programs in frail older community-dwellers.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Co-production practice and future research priorities in United Kingdom-funded applied health research: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- A comparative assessment of two tools designed to support patient safety culture in UK general practice.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- Person-centred data collection methods to embed the authentic voice of people who experience health challenges.BMJ open quality · 2020Review
- Pathway redesign: putting patients ahead of professionals.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2019Article
- Group Well-Child Care and Health Services Utilization: A Bilingual Qualitative Analysis of Parents' Perspectives.Maternal and child health journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIncreasingly, collaborative participatory methods requiring open and honest interaction between a range of stakeholders are being used to improve health service delivery. To be successful these methodologies must incorporate perspectives from a range of patients and staff. Yet, if unaccounted for, the complex relationships amongst staff groups and between patients and providers can affect the veracity and applicability of co-designed solutions.
methodsTwo focus groups convened to discuss suggestions for the improvement of blood testing and result communication in primary care. The groups were mixed of patients and staff in various combinations drawn from the four participating study practices. Here we present a secondary mixed-method analysis of the interaction between participants in both groups using sociogrammatic and thematic analysis.
resultsDespite a similar mix of practice staff and patients the two groups produced contrasting discussions, seemingly influenced by status and social context. The sociograms provided a useful insight into the flow of conversation and highlighted the dominance of the senior staff member in the first focus group. Within the three key themes of social context, the alliances formed between participants and the fluidity of the roles assumed manifested differently between groups apparently dictated by the different profile of the participants of each.
conclusionsFor primary care service improvement attention must be paid to the background of participants when convening collaborative service improvement groups as status and imported hierarchies can have significant connotations for the data produced.
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.