Coproduction of a resource sharing public views of health inequalities: An example of inclusive public and patient involvement and engagement

被引:3
|
作者
Parbery-Clark, Charlotte [1 ]
Nicholls, Rosemary [2 ]
Mcsweeney, Lorraine [1 ]
Sowden, Sarah [1 ]
Lally, Joanne [1 ]
机构
[1] Newcastle Univ, Populat Hlth Sci Inst, Fac Med Sci, Ridley Bldg 1,Level 5, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU, England
[2] NIHR Res Design Serv RDS North East North Cumbria, Newcastle Upon Tyne, England
关键词
co-production; health inequalities; PPIE; LAY PERSPECTIVES; UNDERSTANDINGS; PERCEPTIONS;
D O I
10.1111/hex.13860
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
BackgroundUNderstanding Factors that explain Avoidable hospital admission Inequalities-Research study (UNFAIR) addresses how to reduce health inequalities, particularly for avoidable hospital admissions. Our Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) members broached that health inequalities are complex, challenging to understand and communicate. They identified a need to explore diverse views, including people who have a higher risk of health inequalities. With limited public-facing resources relating to the public's understanding or emotions around health inequalities, this project aimed to fill this gap using co-leadership and co-production.MethodsMembers of the public worked with researchers to co-produce and run PPIE workshops. This project was co-led by a member of the public and a researcher. One online workshop open to anyone in England accompanied by three face-to-face workshops were held. Public contributors, including people living in diverse communities, were invited. Inclusive involvement opportunities were offered including flexible ways of involvement and remuneration. To strengthen the key messages' rigour, transcriptions of the audio-recordings from each workshop, with facilitator notes, were analysed using thematic analysis. From the key messages, an animation was co-produced with public contributors with the public's voice being integral throughout.Key MessagesA total of 58 people took part capturing intersecting and multiple dimensions of marginalisation including people with a range of ages, genders, ethnicities, socioeconomic backgrounds, and members of communities who face exclusion (including people with learning difficulties and experiencing ill-health). The animation highlighted powerful lived experience, for example, some people are dying earlier than expected. Health inequalities conjured up powerful emotions, such as anger and hopelessness. Public views of how to address health inequalities included respecting, accepting and valuing everyone, regardless of, for example, where people live. The animation is publicly available for use by anyone, including decision makers across the health and care system.ConclusionsThrough co-leadership and co-production, this project is an example of inclusive PPIE. This project provided a way for the public's voice to influence policy and practice to inform understanding and action to address health inequalities. The animation provides powerful insights into what health inequalities mean to people with examples of lived experience and corroborates the moral argument for action by decision makers.Patient and Public ContributionMembers of the public, including people who were affected or at higher risk of health inequalities, co-led this project and were involved as co-creators and developers from the inception of the project to completion. Their involvement was integral and documented in full throughout the project.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Patient and Public Involvement in Health Economics and Outcomes Research
    Paula K. Lorgelly
    The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2021, 14 : 379 - 380
  • [42] Patient and public involvement in health research: A Nordic perspective
    Sand, Anne-Sofie
    Grimsgaard, Sameline
    Pettersen, Ingvild
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2020, 48 (01) : 119 - 121
  • [43] Democratic Justifications for Patient Public Involvement and Engagement in Health Research: An Exploration of the Theoretical Debates and Practical Challenges
    Frith, Lucy
    JOURNAL OF MEDICINE AND PHILOSOPHY, 2023, 48 (04): : 400 - 412
  • [44] Wider institutional research cultures and their influence on patient and public involvement and engagement in health research - An institutional ethnography
    Karlsson, Anne Wettergren
    Kragh-Sorensen, Anne
    Borgesen, Kirsten
    Behrens, Karsten Erik
    Andersen, Torben
    Maglekaer, Karen Margrethe
    Rothmann, Mette Juel
    Ketelaar, Marjolijn
    Petersen, Esben Nedenskov
    Janssens, Astrid
    SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2024, 347
  • [45] Public views on community involvement in local health services in South Africa
    ChimereDan, GC
    PUBLIC HEALTH, 1997, 111 (06) : 399 - 404
  • [46] Public Involvement & Engagement in health inequalities research on COVID-19 pandemic: a case study of CIDACS/FIOCRUZ BAHIA
    Fonseca, Adalton dos Anjos
    Pimenta, Denise Moraes
    Sebastiao de Almeida, Mariana Rodrigues
    Lima, Raiza Tourinho
    Barreto, Mauricio Lima
    Travassos Ichihara, Maria Yury
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF POPULATION DATA SCIENCE (IJPDS), 2020, 5 (03):
  • [47] Evidence-based patient/public voice: a patient and public involvement audit in the field of sexual health
    Meyrick, Jane
    Gray, Debra
    BMJ SEXUAL & REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, 2018, 44 (04) : 267 - 271
  • [48] Developing inclusive public involvement and engagement activities with secondary school students and educational professionals: a protocol
    Cross L.
    Banham D.
    Melendez-Torres G.J.
    Ford T.
    van Sluijs E.
    Liabo K.
    Research Involvement and Engagement, 10 (1)
  • [49] Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE): first steps in the process of the engagement in research projects in Brazil
    Bensenor, I. M.
    Goulart, A. C.
    Thomas, G. N.
    Lip, G. Y. H.
    Arasalingam, Ajini
    Beane, Abi
    Bensenor, Isabela M.
    Brocklehurst, Peter
    Cheng, Kar Keung
    El-Bouri, Wahbi
    Feng, Mei
    Goulart, Alessandra C.
    Greenfield, Sheila
    Guo, Yutao
    Guruparan, Mahesan
    Gusso, Gustavo
    Gooden, Tiffany E.
    Haniffa, Rashan
    Humphreys, Lindsey
    Jolly, Kate
    Jowett, Sue
    Kodippily, Chamira
    Kumarendran, Balachandran
    Lancashire, Emma
    Lane, Deirdre A.
    Li, Xuewen
    Lip, Gregory Y. H.
    Li, Yan-guang
    Lobban, Trudie
    Lotufo, Paulo A.
    Manaseki-Holland, Semira
    Moore, David
    Nirantharakumar, Krishnarajah
    Olmos, Rodrigo D.
    Paschoal, Elisabete
    Pirasanth, Paskaran
    Powsiga, Uruthirakumar
    Romagnolli, Carla
    Santos, Itamar S.
    Shantsila, Alena
    Sheron, Vethanayagan Antony
    Shribavan, Kanesamoorthy
    Szmigin, Isabelle
    Subaschandren, Kumaran
    Surenthirakumaran, Rajendra
    Tai, Meihui
    Thavarajah, Bamini
    Thomas, G. Neil
    Toippa, Timo
    Varella, Ana C.
    BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH, 2022, 55 (01)
  • [50] Community views and perspectives on public engagement in health technology assessment decision making
    Wortley, Sally
    Tong, Allison
    Howard, Kirsten
    AUSTRALIAN HEALTH REVIEW, 2017, 41 (01) : 68 - 74