RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Health 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. AIM: To 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 SETTING: Participatory action research to implement the intervention in two general practices in the North of England was undertaken. The intervention combined two different participatory practices: partnership working involving externally facilitated meetings with PPG members and staff; and consultation with the wider patient population using a bespoke discrete choice experiment (DCE). METHOD: To 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. RESULTS: In 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. CONCLUSION: Combining 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.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Uncertainties exist in how respondents interpret response options in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), particularly across different domains and for different scale labels. The current study assessed how respondents quantitatively interpret common response options. METHODS: Members of the general public were recruited to this study via an online panel, stratified by age, gender, and having English as a first language. Participants completed background questions and were randomised to answer questions on one of three domains (i.e. loneliness (negatively phrased), happiness or activities (positively phrased)). Participants were asked to provide quantitative interpretations of response options (e.g. how many times per week is equal to "often") and to order several common response options (e.g. occasionally, sometimes) on a 0-100 slider scale. Chi-squared tests and regression analyses were used to assess whether response options were interpreted consistently across domains and respondent characteristics. RESULTS: Data from 1377 participants were analysed. There was general consistency in quantifying the number of times over the last 7 days to which each response option referred. Response options were consistently assigned a lower value in the loneliness than happiness and activities domains. Individual differences, such as age and English as a second language, explained some significant variation in responses, but less than domain. CONCLUSION: Members of the public quantify common response options in a similar way, but their quantification is not equivalent across domains or every type of respondent. Recommendations for the use of certain scale labels over others in PROM development are provided.
