ArticleBMC health services research2023
Public involvement in the Swedish health system: citizen dialogues with unclear outcomes.
Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tensions in patient involvement and engagement in health research and development: a qualitative interview study with key actors.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn systems with representative democracy, there is a growing consensus that citizens should have the possibility to participate in decisions that affect them, extending beyond just voting in national or local/regional elections. However, significant uncertainty remains regarding the role of public involvement in decision-making, not least in healthcare. In this article, we focus on citizen dialogues (CDs) in a health system that is politically governed and decentralised. The aim of the study was to evaluate the functioning of citizen dialogues in the Swedish health system in terms of representation, process, content, and outcomes.
methodsThis study was conducted using a qualitative case design focusing on CDs at the regional level in Sweden. The regional level is politically elected and responsible for funding and provision of healthcare. The data consist of public documents describing and evaluating the CDs and interviews, which were analysed drawing on a modified version of the Abelson et al. analytical framework for evaluating public involvement in healthcare.
resultsSome CDs were an attempt to counteract political inequality by inviting groups that are less represented, while others aimed to increase legitimacy by reducing the distance between policymakers and citizens. The results from the CDs-which were often held in the beginning of a potential policy process-were often stated to be used as input in decision-making, but how was not made clear. Generally, the CDs formed an opportunity for members of the public to express preferences (on a broad topic) rather than developing preferences, with a risk of suggestions being too unspecific to be useful in decision-making. The more disinterested public perspective, in comparison with patients, reinforced the risk of triviality. A need for better follow-up on the impact of the CDs on actual decision-making was mentioned as a necessary step for progress.
conclusionsIt is unclear how input from CDs is used in policymaking in the politically governed regions responsible for healthcare in Sweden. The analysis points to policy input from CDs being too general and a lack of documentation of how it is used. We need to know more about how much weight input from CDs carry in relation to other types of information that politicians use, and in relation to other types of patient and public involvement.
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.