ReviewHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2021
Exploring disconnected discourses about Patient and Public Involvement and Volunteer Involvement in English health and social care.
Review in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chronic pain through COVID.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Exploring disconnected discourses about Patient and Public Involvement and Volunteer Involvement in English health and social care.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Review
- Trialogue Meetings: Engaging Citizens and Fostering Communities of Wellbeing Through Collective Dialogue.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) in health and social care policy, service decision-making and research are presented as good practice in England. Yet the explicit rationale for PPI and how it is positioned within the literature, policy and practice remain confused, in particular, in relation to Volunteer Involvement (VI). In health and social care, PPI and VI are managed and valued as conceptually distinct, yet the discourses in their policy and practice documents treat them as closely related in fundamental ways.
objectiveCompare and critically evaluate discourses framing PPI and VI within English health and social care.
designA critical discourse approach was used to explore the accounts of PPI and VI in policy. These accounts were then compared and contrasted with personal accounts of volunteering in health and social care settings.
resultsTwenty documents from key national health and social care bodies were discursively examined in terms of their framing PPI and VI. A narrative disconnect between the two was repeatedly confirmed. This finding contrasted with an analysis of personal accounts of VI which displayed VI as a form of PPI.
conclusionThere is a disconnect between language, narratives and practice in PPI and in VI which may have direct consequences for policy and practice. Recognising and managing it can offer innovative ways of enabling volunteers to be involved across health and social care settings, ensuring the experiential value added by volunteers' service contributions, to be recognised so that their democratic participation may be seen to shape services.
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.