ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2020
The 'nuts and bolts' of including service users and carers in the recruitment of health and social work students in an English university-An interdisciplinary critique.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A theoretical systematic review of patient involvement in health and social care education.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2023Pooled it
- The 'nuts and bolts' of including service users and carers in the recruitment of health and social work students in an English university-An interdisciplinary critique.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe literature regarding inclusion of service users and carers (SUACs) in the recruitment processes for future health and social work professionals has primarily presented such inclusion as positive for all. This study is novel in its exploration of the detail of SUACs' involvement and in its reach across a whole university department of health and social care disciplines.
objectiveTo examine the detail of ways in which SUACs were actually involved in student selection and whether they have any real influence on recruitment decisions.
methodThis co-produced study took place in an English university. A qualitative, semi-structured interviewing approach was undertaken with 12 staff across social work, nursing, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, paramedicine and physician associate disciplines. Thematic analysis was employed independently with both researchers agreeing resultant themes.
findingsA range of recruitment activities which included SUACs were found, evidencing both full and partial involvement in decision making. Nine themes emerged-The quality of SUACs' inclusion; Understanding reasons for including SUACs; SUACs being more knowledgeable than academic staff; SUACs influencing final decisions; The high expectations of candidates by SUACs; SUACs' need for training; Marketization and scepticism; and Logistics and the presumption of ableism.
conclusionsTransparent protocols are essential if SUACs are to be equitably included in student recruitment processes. A shared model of SUACs' inclusion should be attainable across disciplines, even if the 'nuts and bolts' of recruitment processes vary. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This work was co-produced with a SUACs' group from conception and design through to fieldwork and write-up.
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.