Involvement that makes an impact on healthcare: Perceptions of the Swedish public.

AIM: 'Participation and influence in society' is the first of 11 objective domains in Swedish public health policy. The aim of this article is to investigate the views of the Swedish general population on the impact of a range of health participation activities, and whether these views were associated with sociodemographic characteristics. METHODS: The study utilizes a national representative survey of the Swedish population, aged 15 years and over ( n = 1500). RESULTS: Apart from voting in regional elections - which most of the respondents believed to be an influential way to make improvements in healthcare (74%) - respondents believed more in individual patient activities than activities associated with adopting a citizen role and acting collectively. A majority of respondents believed in the impact of replying to patient surveys (67%), making a complaint (61%), talking directly to staff (58%) or changing their healthcare provider (54%). Fewer believed in the impact of joining a patient organization (46%), taking part in a citizen council (35%) or joining a political party (34%). Beliefs in impact increased with educational attainment and decreased with age. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest people have more confidence in the impact of participating as individual patients rather than collectively and as citizens. To ensure that activities enable 'participation and influence in society', complementary opportunities for collective involvement that also take into account under-represented voices such as those with a low level of education need to be developed.

What are tests for? The implications of stuttering steps along the US patient pathway.

This article explores the implications of how US family physicians make decisions about ordering diagnostic tests for their patients. Data is based on a study of 256 physicians interviewed after viewing a video vignette of a presenting patient. The qualitative analysis of 778 statements relating to trustworthiness of evidence for their decision making, the use of any kind of technology and diagnostic testing suggests a range of internal and external constraints on physician decision making. Test-ordering for family physicians in the United States is significantly influenced by both hidden cognitive processes related to the physician's calculation of patient resources and a health insurance system that requires certain types of evidence in order to permit further tests or particular interventions. The consequence of the need for physicians to meet multiple forms of proof that may not always relate to relevant treatment delays a diagnosis and treatment plan agreed not only by the physician and patient but also the insurance company. This results in a patient journey that is made up of stuttering steps to a confirmed diagnosis and treatment undermining patient-centred practice, compromising patient care, constraining physician autonomy and creating additional expense.

Undermining patient and public engagement and limiting its impact: the consequences of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 on collective patient and public involvement.

Patient and public involvement has been at the heart of UK health policy for more than two decades. This commitment to putting patients at the heart of the British National Health Service (NHS) has become a central principle helping to ensure equity, patient safety and effectiveness in the health system. The recent Health and Social Care Act 2012 is the most significant reform of the NHS since its foundation in 1948. More radically, this legislation undermines the principle of patient and public involvement, public accountability and returns the power for prioritisation of health services to an unaccountable medical elite. This legislation marks a sea-change in the approach to patient and public involvement in the UK and signals a shift in the commitment of the UK government to patient-centred care.

Revolution or evolution: the challenges of conceptualizing patient and public involvement in a consumerist world.

BACKGROUND: Changing the relationship between citizens and the state is at the heart of current policy reforms. Across England and the developed world, from Oslo to Ontario, Newcastle to Newquay, giving the public a more direct say in shaping the organization and delivery of healthcare services is central to the current health reform agenda. Realigning public services around those they serve, based on evidence from service user's experiences, and designed with and by the people rather than simply on their behalf, is challenging the dominance of managerialism, marketization and bureaucratic expertise. Despite this attention there is limited conceptual and theoretical work to underpin policy and practice. OBJECTIVE: This article proposes a conceptual framework for patient and public involvement (PPI) and goes on to explore the different justifications for involvement and the implications of a rights-based rather than a regulatory approach. These issues are highlighted through exploring the particular evolution of English health policy in relation to PPI on the one hand and patient choice on the other before turning to similar patterns apparent in the United States and more broadly. CONCLUSIONS: A framework for conceptualizing PPI is presented that differentiates between the different types and aims of involvement and their potential impact. Approaches to involvement are different in those countries that adopt a rights-based rather than a regulatory approach. I conclude with a discussion of the tension and interaction apparent in the globalization of both involvement and patient choice in both policy and practice.

'Listen to my madness': understanding the experiences of people with serious mental illness.

This article explores the salience of disability theory for understanding the experiences of people with serious mental illness. Drawing on data from a focus group study, we suggest that users experience both impairment (as embodied irrationality) which can, in itself, be oppressive, and also have to manage their lives within a largely disabling society. We outline some of the strategies adopted by users to manage their situation and ensure they access and receive health services, and illustrate how these are a result of the complex relationship between disability and impairment. We suggest that using a framework of the social model of disability provides a useful way of understanding and making sense of the experience of users with serious mental illness.

Patients' and health professionals' views on primary care for people with serious mental illness: focus group study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experience of providing and receiving primary care from the perspectives of primary care health professionals and patients with serious mental illness respectively. DESIGN: Qualitative study consisting of six patient groups, six health professional groups, and six combined focus groups. SETTING: Six primary care trusts in the West Midlands. PARTICIPANTS: Forty five patients with serious mental illness, 39 general practitioners (GPs), and eight practice nurses. RESULTS: Most health professionals felt that the care of people with serious mental illness was too specialised for primary care. However, most patients viewed primary care as the cornerstone of their health care and preferred to consult their own GP, who listened and was willing to learn, rather than be referred to a different GP with specific mental health knowledge. Swift access was important to patients, with barriers created by the effects of the illness and the noisy or crowded waiting area. Some patients described how they exaggerated symptoms ("acted up") to negotiate an urgent appointment, a strategy that was also employed by some GPs to facilitate admission to secondary care. Most participants felt that structured reviews of care had value. However, whereas health professionals perceived serious mental illness as a lifelong condition, patients emphasised the importance of optimism in treatment and hope for recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care is of central importance to people with serious mental illness. The challenge for health professionals and patients is to create a system in which patients can see a health professional when they want to without needing to exaggerate their symptoms. The importance that patients attach to optimism in treatment, continuity of care, and listening skills compared with specific mental health knowledge should encourage health professionals in primary care to play a greater role in the care of patients with serious mental illness.