SynthesisBMC health services research2020
What methods are used to promote patient and family involvement in healthcare regulation? A multiple case study across four countries.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the use of the input of care users in long-term care homes during 2020-2023 in the Netherlands: an exploratory study.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Factors shaping user involvement in social and health services in Poland: the perspective of persons with disabilities.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Youth Care Stories: A Scoping Review Into What, Why and How Narrative Approaches Understand and Improve Quality of Care for Young People.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Involving Service Users in Care Regulation: A Scoping Review of Empirical Literature.International journal of health policy and management · 2025Article
- Sailing Too Close to the Wind? How Harnessing Patient Voice Can Identify Drift towards Boundaries of Acceptable Performance.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Perspectives of Healthcare Professionals and Managers on Patient Involvement in Care Pathway Development: A Discourse Analysis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Influence of external assessment on quality and safety in surgery: a qualitative study of surgeons' perspectives.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- External inspection approaches and involvement of stakeholders' views in inspection following serious incidents - a qualitative mixed methods study from the perspectives of regulatory inspectors.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- The value of experts by experience in social domain supervision in the Netherlands: results from a 'mystery guests' project.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Strategies that enabled access to chronic care during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond in South Africa.Health SA = SA Gesondheid · 2024Article
- Correlations between care users' and the healthcare inspectorate's ratings of the quality of care in long-term care homes.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
- Potential Barriers of Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment in Central and Eastern European Countries.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the regulation of healthcare, the subject of patient and family involvement figures increasingly prominently on the agenda. However, the literature on involving patients and families in regulation is still in its infancy. A systematic analysis of how patient and family involvement in regulation is accomplished across different health systems is lacking. We provide such an overview by mapping and classifying methods of patient and family involvement in regulatory practice in four countries; Norway, England, the Netherlands, and Australia. We thus provide a knowledge base that enables discussions about possible types of involvement, and advantages and difficulties of involvement encountered in practice.
methodsThe research design was a multiple case study of patient and family involvement in regulation in four countries. The authors collected 1) academic literature if available and 2) documents of regulators that describe user involvement. Based on the data collected, the authors from each country completed a pre-agreed template to describe the involvement methods. The following information was extracted and included where available: 1) Method of involvement, 2) Type of regulatory activity, 3) Purpose of involvement, 4) Who is involved and 5) Lessons learnt.
resultsOur mapping of involvement strategies showed a range of methods being used in regulation, which we classified into four categories: individual proactive, individual reactive, collective proactive, and collective reactive methods. Reported advantages included: increased quality of regulation, increased legitimacy, perceived justice for those affected, and empowerment. Difficulties were also reported concerning: how to incorporate the input of users in decisions, the fact that not all users want to be involved, time and costs required, organizational procedures standing in the way of involvement, and dealing with emotions.
conclusionsOur mapping of user involvement strategies establishes a broad variety of ways to involve patients and families. The four categories can serve as inspiration to regulators in healthcare. The paper shows that stimulating involvement in regulation is a challenging and complex task. The fact that regulators are experimenting with different methods can be viewed positively in this regard.
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.