Community participation for rural healthcare design: description and critique of a method

Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Partnering with consumers in the planning, delivery and evaluation of health services is an essential component of person-centred care. There are many ways to partner with consumers to improve health services, including formal group partnerships (such as committees, boards or steering groups). However, consumers' and health providers' views and experiences of formal group partnerships remain unclear. In this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focus specifically on formal group partnerships where health providers and consumers share decision-making about planning, delivering and/or evaluating health services. Formal group partnerships were selected because they are widely used throughout the world to improve person-centred care. For the purposes of this QES, the term 'consumer' refers to a person who is a patient, carer or community member who brings their perspective to health service partnerships. 'Health provider' refers to a person with a health policy, management, administrative or clinical role who participates in formal partnerships in an advisory or representative capacity. This QES was co-produced with a Stakeholder Panel of consumers and health providers. The QES was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane intervention review entitled Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

1. To synthesise the views and experiences of consumers and health providers of formal partnership approaches that aimed to improve planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. 2. To identify best practice principles for formal partnership approaches in health services by understanding consumers' and health providers' views and experiences.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and October 2018. We also searched grey literature sources including websites of relevant research and policy organisations involved in promoting person-centred care.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative studies that explored consumers' and health providers' perceptions and experiences of partnering in formal group formats to improve the planning, delivery or evaluation of health services.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Following completion of abstract and full-text screening, we used purposive sampling to select a sample of eligible studies that covered a range of pre-defined criteria, including rich data, range of countries and country income level, settings, participants, and types of partnership activities. A Framework Synthesis approach was used to synthesise the findings of the sample. We appraised the quality of each study using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skill Program) tool. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. The Stakeholder Panel was involved in each stage of the review from development of the protocol to development of the best practice principles.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 182 studies that were eligible for inclusion. From this group, we selected 33 studies to include in the final synthesis. These studies came from a wide range of countries including 28 from high-income countries and five from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). Each of the studies included the experiences and views of consumers and/or health providers of partnering in formal group formats. The results were divided into the following categories. Contextual factors influencing partnerships: government policy, policy implementation processes and funding, as well as the organisational context of the health service, could facilitate or impede partnering (moderate level of confidence). Consumer recruitment: consumer recruitment occurred in different ways and consumers managed the recruitment process in a minority of studies only (high level of confidence). Recruiting a range of consumers who were reflective of the clinic's demographic population was considered desirable, particularly by health providers (high level of confidence). Some health providers perceived that individual consumers' experiences were not generalisable to the broader population whereas consumers perceived it could be problematic to aim to represent a broad range of community views (high level of confidence). Partnership dynamics and processes: positive interpersonal dynamics between health providers and consumers facilitated partnerships (high level of confidence). However, formal meeting formats and lack of clarity about the consumer role could constrain consumers' involvement (high level of confidence). Health providers' professional status, technical knowledge and use of jargon were intimidating for some consumers (high level of confidence) and consumers could feel their experiential knowledge was not valued (moderate level of confidence). Consumers could also become frustrated when health providers dominated the meeting agenda (moderate level of confidence) and when they experienced token involvement, such as a lack of decision-making power (high level of confidence) Perceived impacts on partnership participants: partnering could affect health provider and consumer participants in both positive and negative ways (high level of confidence). Perceived impacts on health service planning, delivery and evaluation: partnering was perceived to improve the person-centredness of health service culture (high level of confidence), improve the built environment of the health service (high level of confidence), improve health service design and delivery e.g. facilitate 'out of hours' services or treatment closer to home (high level of confidence), enhance community ownership of health services, particularly in LMICs (moderate level of confidence), and improve consumer involvement in strategic decision-making, under certain conditions (moderate level of confidence). There was limited evidence suggesting partnering may improve health service evaluation (very low level of confidence). Best practice principles for formal partnering to promote person-centred care were developed from these findings. The principles were developed collaboratively with the Stakeholder Panel and included leadership and health service culture; diversity; equity; mutual respect; shared vision and regular communication; shared agendas and decision-making; influence and sustainability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Successful formal group partnerships with consumers require health providers to continually reflect and address power imbalances that may constrain consumers' participation. Such imbalances may be particularly acute in recruitment procedures, meeting structure and content and decision-making processes. Formal group partnerships were perceived to improve the physical environment of health services, the person-centredness of health service culture and health service design and delivery. Implementing the best practice principles may help to address power imbalances, strengthen formal partnering, improve the experiences of consumers and health providers and positively affect partnership outcomes.

The added value and unintended negative consequences of public involvement processes in the planning, development and implementation of community health services: Results from a thematic synthesis

PURPOSE

Public involvement is widely considered a means to improve health and quality of health services. The research literature reveals ambiguities concerning added value and unintended negative consequences of public involvement processes. The aim of this study is to identify, synthesise and present an overview of added value and unintended negative consequences of public involvement processes in the planning, development and implementation of community health services.

METHODS

Data from 36 peer-reviewed articles retrieved from a systematic search in the CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, ProQuest, and Scopus databases in October 2019 and updated in April 2021 were extracted. A three-step thematic synthesis was conducted involving (1) line-by-line text coding, (2) developing descriptive themes and (3) generating analytical themes.

RESULTS

Two main themes along with their corresponding themes provided an overview of the added value of public involvement processes at the individual, service and political levels. Unintended negative consequences concerning individual resources, uncertainty about the effect of involvement and power differences were revealed.

CONCLUSION

Added value of public involvement processes is primarily reported on an individual and service level. The added value seems to be accompanied by unintended negative consequences. Training of professional facilitators and recruitment of participants that come from vulnerable groups could help promote equality in public involvement. Unintended negative consequences need to be further explored in future evaluations in order to achieve the desired goals of public involvement.

Public involvement in the planning, development and implementation of community health services: A scoping review of public involvement methods

Services have improved due to public involvement in the planning, development, and implementation of health services. A wide range of public involvement methods, based on highly diversified methodological approaches and conceptualisations, have been developed. However, the extensive growth of new and different involvement methods lacks consistency and promotes uncertainty about which methods to apply when, how, and why. Aiming to identify, chart and summarise public involvement methods in the planning, development and implementation of community health services, we conducted a systematic search in April 2021. Seven databases were searched: CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, ProQuest and Scopus. The systematic facet search corresponded with the PCC framework: Patient (P), Concept (C) and Context (C). A descriptive synthesis and a thematic analysis of included studies were conducted. Thirty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Two main categories of public involvement methods were identified: multiple methods approaches and single method approaches involving a variety of involvement activities. The characteristics of the two categories of methods were coded in accordance with methodological approach, activity and facilitation technique. The majority of the studies` methodological approach was either participatory or community-based. A variety of techniques to facilitate group discussions, sharing of ideas, and group processes were used. The results provide an overview of the characteristics of different public involvement methods, which may inform agencies and practitioners in choosing appropriate methods to qualify the public involvement in planning, developing, and implementing community health services. Further research is needed on how to manage public involvement in the implementation of community health services. In addition, rigorous evaluation studies of the impact of public involvement methods are needed.

How can rural community-engaged health services planning achieve sustainable healthcare system changes?

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the Rural Site Visit Project (SV Project) were to develop a successful model for engaging all 201 communities in rural British Columbia, Canada, build relationships and gather data about community healthcare issues to help modify existing rural healthcare programs and inform government rural healthcare policy.

DESIGN

An adapted version of Boelen's health partnership model was used to identify each community's Health Care Partners: health providers, academics, policy makers, health managers, community representatives and linked sectors. Qualitative data were gathered using a semistructured interview guide. Major themes were identified through content analysis, and this information was fed back to government and interviewees in reports every 6 months.

SETTING

The 107 communities visited thus far have healthcare services that range from hospitals with surgical programs to remote communities with no medical services at all. The majority have access to local primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were recruited from the Health Care Partner groups identified above using purposeful and snowball sampling.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

A successful process was developed to engage rural communities in identifying their healthcare priorities, while simultaneously building and strengthening relationships. The qualitative data were analysed from 185 meetings in 80 communities and shared with policy makers at governmental and community levels.

RESULTS

36 themes have been identified and three overarching themes that interconnect all the interviews, namely Relationships, Autonomy and Change Over Time, are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The SV Project appears to be unique in that it is physician led, prioritises relationships, engages all of the healthcare partners singly and jointly in each community, is ongoing, provides feedback to both the policy makers and all interviewees on a 6-monthly basis and, by virtue of its large scope, has the ability to produce interim reports that have helped inform system change.

Public perspectives on health improvement within a remote-rural island community

Background

Rural health outcomes are often worse than their urban counterparts. While rural health theory recognizes the importance of the social determinants of health, there is a lack of insight into public perspectives for improving rural health beyond the provision of health‐care services. Gaining insight into perceived solutions, that include and go beyond health‐ care, can help to inform resource allocation decisions to improve rural health.

Objective

To identify and describe shared perspectives within a remote‐rural community on how to improve rural health.

Method

Using Q methodology, a set of 40 statements were developed representing different perceptions of how to improve rural health. Residents of one remote‐rural island community ranked this statement set according to their level of agreement. Card‐sorts were analysed using factor analysis to identify shared points of view and interpreted alongside post‐sort qualitative interviews.

Results

Sixty‐two respondents participated in the study. Four shared perspectives were identified, labelled: Local economic activity; Protect and care for the community; Redistribution of resources; and Investing in people. Factors converged on the need to relieve poverty and ensure access to amenities and services.

Discussion and conclusions

Factors represent different elements of a multifaceted theory of rural health, indicating that ‘lay’ respondents are capable of comprehending various approaches to health improvement and perspectives are not homogenous within rural communities. Respondents diverged on the role of individuals, the public sector and ‘empowered’ community‐based organizations in delivering these solutions, with implications for policy and practice.

Public Contribution

Members of the public were involved in the development and piloting of the statement set.

Citizen participation in health services co-production: a roadmap for navigating participation types and outcomes

Primary healthcare managers are required to include citizens in service co-design and co-production. Health policy guidance appears deceptively simple and largely outlines how people could participate in a range of health services activities. Policy tends to neglect outcomes assessment, and a multidisciplinary academic literature corpus is large and complex to navigate for practical, time-poor managers. In this paper, we set out to provide a summary 'map' of key concepts in participation to assist managers in aligning participants, activities, expected outcomes and outcome indicators, and to consider contextual factors that could affect participation processes and outcomes. The intention is a practical tool for planning and evaluation of participation. The map is built drawing on policy guidance, literature and authors' experiences of implementing and researching health services participation.

[Commitment and community participation towards health: knowledge creation from the systematization of social experiences]

OBJECTIVE

Objective. To reflect on the process of committing to participation in the implementation of a health strategic plan, using Participative Systematization of Social Experiences as a tool.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Our study was a qualitative research-intervention study, based on the Dialectical Methodological Conception approach. We designed and implemented a two-day workshop, six hours daily, using Systematization methodology with a Community Work Group (CWG). During the workshop, women systematized their experience, with compromise as axis of the process. Using Grounded Theory techniques, we applied micro-analysis to data in order to identify and strengthen categories that emerged during the systematization process. We completed open and axial coding.

RESULTS

The CWG identified that commitment and participation itself is influenced by group dynamics and structural determinants. They also reconsidered the way they understood and exercised commitment and participation, and generated knowledge, empowering them to improve their future practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Commitment and participation were determined by group dynamics and structural factors such as socioeconomic conditions and gender roles. These determinants must be visible and understood in order to generate proposals that are aimed at strengthening the participation and organization of groups.

Applying social innovation theory to examine how community co-designed health services develop: using a case study approach and mixed methods

Background

Citizen participation in health service co-production is increasingly enacted. A reason for engaging community members is to co-design services that are locally-appropriate and harness local assets. To date, much literature examines processes of involving participants, with little consideration of innovative services are designed, how innovations emerge, develop and whether they sustain or diffuse. This paper addresses this gap by examining co-designed initiatives through the lens of social innovation – a conceptualisation more attuned to analysing grassroots innovation than common health services research approaches considering top-down, technical innovations. This paper considers whether social innovation is a useful frame for examining co-designed services.

Methods

Eighty-eight volunteer community-based participants from six rural Australian communities were engaged using the same, tested co-design framework for a 12-month design and then 12-month implementation phase, in 24 workshops (2014–16). Mixed, qualitative data were collected and used to formulate five case studies of community co-designed innovations. A social innovation theory, derived from literature, was applied as an analytical frame to examine co-design cases at 3 stages: innovation growth, development and sustainability/diffusion.

Results

Social innovation theory was found relevant in examining and understanding what occurred at each stage of innovation development. Innovations themselves were all adaptations of existing ideas. They emerged due to local participants combining knowledge from local context, own experiences and exemplars. External facilitation brought resources together. The project provided a protective niche in which pilot innovations developed, but they needed support from managers and/or policymakers to be implemented; and to be compatible with existing health system practices. For innovations to move to sustainability/diffusion required political relationships. Challenging existing practice without these was problematical.

Conclusions

Social innovation provides a useful lens to understand the grassroots innovation process implied in community participation in service co-design. It helps to show problems in co-design processes and highlights the need for strong partnerships and advocacy beyond the immediate community for new ideas to thrive. Regional commissioning organisations are intended to diffuse useful, co-designed service innovations. Efforts are required to develop an innovation system to realise the potential of community involvement in co-design.

Co-production of community mental health services: Organising the interplay between public services and civil society in Denmark

Co-production involves knowledge and skills based on both lived experiences of citizens and professionally training of staff. In Europe, co-production is viewed as an essential tool for meeting the demographic, political and economic challenges of welfare states. However, co-production is facing challenges because public services and civil society are rooted in two very different logics. These challenges are typically encountered by provider organisations and their staff who must convert policies and strategies into practice. Denmark is a welfare state with a strong public services sector and a relatively low involvement of volunteers. The aim of this study was to investigate how provider organisations and their staff navigate between the two logics. The present analysis is a critical case study of two municipalities selected from seven participating municipalities, for their maximum diversity. The study setting was the Community Families programme, which aim to support the social network of mental health users by offering regular contact with selected private families/individuals. The task of the municipalities was to initiate and support Community Families. The analysis built on qualitative data generated at the organisational level in the seven participating municipalities. Within the two "case study" municipalities, qualitative interviews were conducted with front-line co-ordinators (six) and line managers (two). The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded using the software program NVivo. The results confirm the central role played by staff and identify a close interplay between public services and civil society logics as essential for the organisation of co-production. Corresponding objectives, activities and collaborative relations of provider organisations are keys for facilitating the co-productive practice of individual staff. Organised in this way, co-production can succeed even in a mental health setting associated with social stigma and in a welfare state dominated by public services.

Implementation of oral health initiatives by Australian rural communities: Factors for success

In this paper, we consider factors significant in the success of community participation in the implementation of new oral health services. Our analysis draws on data from the Rural Engaging Communities in Oral Health (Rural ECOH) study (2014-2016). We aimed to assess the Australian relevance of a Scottish community participation framework for health service development; Remote Service Futures. Internationally, community participation in planning of health initiatives is common, but less common in new service implementation. Health managers query the legitimacy of "lay" community members, whether they will persist, and whether they can act as change agents. Our data provide evidence that helps answer these queries. Six communities, located within regions covered by two large rural primary healthcare organisations (Medicare Locals), were selected in two Australian states. Two university-based facilitators worked with a group of local residents (for each community) to monitor implementation of new oral health initiatives designed through participatory processes. Data about implementation were collected through interviews with 28 key stakeholders at the beginning of implementation and 12 months later. Data were coded, themed and analysed abductively. Five themes emerged; the inter-relationship between community motivation to participate with the fortunes of the oral health initiatives, having the "right" people involved, continuing involvement of sponsors and/or significant people, trusting working relationships between participants and perceiving benefits from participation. Findings provide evidence of a role for community participation in implementing new community services if solid partnerships with relevant providers can be negotiated and services are seen to be relevant and useful to the community.