ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2024
Patient influence on general practice service improvement decision making: a participatory research mixed-methods intervention study.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Coverage and quality of patient participation groups: a mixed-methods analysis of Care Quality Commission reports.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Tackling health inequalities together: inclusion health and co-production.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth policy promotes patient participation in decision making about service organisation. In English general practice this happens through contractually required patient participation groups (PPGs). However, there are problems with the enactment of PPGs that have not been systematically addressed.
aimTo observe how a co-designed theory-informed intervention can increase representational legitimacy and facilitate power sharing to support PPGs to influence decision making about general practice service improvement. DESIGN AND
settingParticipatory action research to implement the intervention in two general practices in the North of England was undertaken. The intervention combined two different participatory practices:
methodTo illustrate decision making in PPGs, qualitative data are presented from participant observation notes and photographed visual data generated through participatory methods. The DCE results are summarised to illustrate how wider population priorities contributed to overall decision making. Observational data were thematically analysed using normalisation process theory with support from a multi-stakeholder co-research group.
resultsIn both general practices, patients influenced decision making during PPG meetings and through the DCE, resulting in bespoke patient-centred action plans for service improvement. Power asymmetries were addressed through participatory methods, clarification of PPG roles in decision making, and addressing representational legitimacy through wider survey consultation.
conclusionCombining participatory practices and facilitated participatory methods enabled patients to influence decision making about general practice service improvement. The policy of mandatory PPGs needs updating to recognise the need to resource participation in a meaningful way.
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.