IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v102y2011i2p105-116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care: A narrative review of case examples

Author

Listed:
  • Boote, Jonathan
  • Baird, Wendy
  • Sutton, Anthea

Abstract

To review the evidence on public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care; to examine the different methods, levels and stages of involving the public; to synthesise the contributions of the public, as well as the identified tensions, facilitating strategies and recommendations for good practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Boote, Jonathan & Baird, Wendy & Sutton, Anthea, 2011. "Public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care: A narrative review of case examples," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 105-116.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:102:y:2011:i:2:p:105-116
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.05.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851011000832
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.05.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Boote, Jonathan & Telford, Rosemary & Cooper, Cindy, 2002. "Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 213-236, August.
    2. Boote, Jonathan & Barber, Rosemary & Cooper, Cindy, 2006. "Principles and indicators of successful consumer involvement in NHS research: Results of a Delphi study and subgroup analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 280-297, February.
    3. Serrano-Aguilar, P. & Trujillo-Martín, M.M. & Ramos-Goñi, J.M. & Mahtani-Chugani, V. & Perestelo-Pérez, L. & Posada-de la Paz, M., 2009. "Patient involvement in health research: A contribution to a systematic review on the effectiveness of treatments for degenerative ataxias," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 920-925, September.
    4. Boote, Jonathan & Baird, Wendy & Beecroft, Claire, 2010. "Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: A narrative review of case examples," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 10-23, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Parkes, Jacqueline H. & Pyer, Michelle & Wray, Paula & Taylor, Jane, 2014. "Partners in projects: Preparing for public involvement in health and social care research," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 399-408.
    2. Elizabeth Manafò & Lisa Petermann & Virginia Vandall-Walker & Ping Mason-Lai, 2018. "Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-18, March.
    3. Modigh, Anton & Sampaio, Filipa & Moberg, Linda & Fredriksson, Mio, 2021. "The impact of patient and public involvement in health research versus healthcare: A scoping review of reviews," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(9), pages 1208-1221.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bullinger, Angelika C. & Rass, Matthias & Adamczyk, Sabrina & Moeslein, Kathrin M. & Sohn, Stefan, 2012. "Open innovation in health care: Analysis of an open health platform," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 165-175.
    2. Parkes, Jacqueline H. & Pyer, Michelle & Wray, Paula & Taylor, Jane, 2014. "Partners in projects: Preparing for public involvement in health and social care research," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 399-408.
    3. Imke Schilling & Ansgar Gerhardus, 2017. "Methods for Involving Older People in Health Research—A Review of the Literature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-20, November.
    4. Kathryn Oliver & Warren Pearce, 2017. "Three lessons from evidence-based medicine and policy: increase transparency, balance inputs and understand power," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-7, December.
    5. Joan Carlini & Rachel Muir & Annette McLaren-Kennedy & Laurie Grealish, 2023. "Researcher Perceptions of Involving Consumers in Health Research in Australia: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(10), pages 1-16, May.
    6. Linertová, Renata & Serrano-Aguilar, Pedro & Posada-de-la-Paz, Manuel & Hens-Pérez, Manuel & Kanavos, Panos & Taruscio, Domenica & Schieppati, Arrigo & Stefanov, Rumen & Péntek, Márta & Delgado, Claud, 2012. "Delphi approach to select rare diseases for a European representative survey. The BURQOL-RD study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 19-26.
    7. Bukola Mary Ibitoye & Bernie Garrett & Manon Ranger & Jennifer Stinson, 2023. "Conducting Patient-Oriented Research in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(1), pages 19-29, January.
    8. Ailian Zhang & Mengmeng Pan, 2020. "“Smart Process” of Medical Innovation: The Synergism Based on Network and Physical Space," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-17, May.
    9. Anand Chand & Suwastika Naidu, 2017. "Health Care Service Quality and Availability of Skilled Health Workforce: A Panel Data Modelling of the UK, USA and Israel," Modern Applied Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(10), pages 152-152, October.
    10. O'Donnell, Maire & Entwistle, Vikki, 2004. "Consumer involvement in decisions about what health-related research is funded," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 281-290, December.
    11. Pivik, Jayne & Rode, Elisabeth & Ward, Christopher, 2004. "A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 253-268, August.
    12. Modigh, Anton & Sampaio, Filipa & Moberg, Linda & Fredriksson, Mio, 2021. "The impact of patient and public involvement in health research versus healthcare: A scoping review of reviews," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(9), pages 1208-1221.
    13. Ahmed Rashid & Victoria Thomas & Toni Shaw & Gillian Leng, 2017. "Patient and Public Involvement in the Development of Healthcare Guidance: An Overview of Current Methods and Future Challenges," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(3), pages 277-282, June.
    14. Erdem, Seda & Campbell, Danny & Thompson, Carl, 2014. "Elimination and selection by aspects in health choice experiments: Prioritising health service innovations," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 10-22.
    15. Sandy Oliver & David Armes & Gill Gyte, 2009. "Public Involvement in Setting a National Research Agenda," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(3), pages 179-190, September.
    16. Heather J. Bray & Jennifer Stone & Lillith Litchfield & Kara L. Britt & John L. Hopper & Wendy V. Ingman, 2022. "Together Alone: Going Online during COVID-19 Is Changing Scientific Conferences," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, February.
    17. Ann Marie Crosse & Margaret M. Barry & Mary Jo Lavelle & Jane Sixsmith, 2021. "Bridging Knowledge Systems: A Community-Participatory Approach to EcoHealth," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-16, November.
    18. Caron-Flinterman, J. Francisca & Broerse, Jacqueline E.W. & Bunders, Joske F.G., 2005. "The experiential knowledge of patients: a new resource for biomedical research?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(11), pages 2575-2584, June.
    19. Julia Keenan & Fiona Poland & Jonathan Boote & Amanda Howe & Helena Wythe & Anna Varley & Penny Vicary & Lisa Irvine & Amander Wellings, 2019. "‘We’re passengers sailing in the same ship, but we have our own berths to sleep in’: Evaluating patient and public involvement within a regional research programme: An action research project informed," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-28, May.
    20. Jonas Lander & Tobias Hainz & Irene Hirschberg & Daniel Strech, 2014. "Current Practice of Public Involvement Activities in Biomedical Research and Innovation: A Systematic Qualitative Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:102:y:2011:i:2:p:105-116. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.