IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0261808.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer engagement in health care policy, research and services: A systematic review and meta-analysis of methods and effects

Author

Listed:
  • Louise K Wiles
  • Debra Kay
  • Julie A Luker
  • Anthea Worley
  • Jane Austin
  • Allan Ball
  • Alan Bevan
  • Michael Cousins
  • Sarah Dalton
  • Ellie Hodges
  • Lidia Horvat
  • Ellen Kerrins
  • Julie Marker
  • Michele McKinnon
  • Penelope McMillan
  • Maria Alejandra Pinero de Plaza
  • Judy Smith
  • David Yeung
  • Susan L Hillier

Abstract

To assess the effects of consumer engagement in health care policy, research and services. We updated a review published in 2006 and 2009 and revised the previous search strategies for key databases (The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Web of Science) up to February 2020. Selection criteria included randomised controlled trials assessing consumer engagement in developing health care policy, research, or health services. The International Association for Public Participation, Spectrum of Public Participation was used to identify, describe, compare and analyse consumer engagement. Outcome measures were effects on people; effects on the policy/research/health care services; or process outcomes. We included 23 randomised controlled trials with a moderate or high risk of bias, involving 136,265 participants. Most consumer engagement strategies adopted a consultative approach during the development phase of interventions, targeted to health services. Based on four large cluster-randomised controlled trials, there is evidence that consumer engagement in the development and delivery of health services to enhance the care of pregnant women results in a reduction in neonatal, but not maternal, mortality. From other trials, there is evidence that involving consumers in developing patient information material results in material that is more relevant, readable and understandable for patients, and can improve knowledge. Mixed effects are reported of consumer-engagement on the development and/or implementation of health professional training. There is some evidence that using consumer interviewers instead of staff in satisfaction surveys can have a small influence on the results. There is some evidence that consumers may have a role in identifying a broader range of health care priorities that are complementary to those from professionals. There is some evidence that consumer engagement in monitoring and evaluating health services may impact perceptions of patient safety or quality of life. There is growing evidence from randomised controlled trials of the effects of consumer engagement on the relevance and positive outcomes of health policy, research and services. Health care consumers, providers, researchers and funders should continue to employ evidence-informed consumer engagement in their jurisdictions, with embedded evaluation.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42018102595.

Suggested Citation

  • Louise K Wiles & Debra Kay & Julie A Luker & Anthea Worley & Jane Austin & Allan Ball & Alan Bevan & Michael Cousins & Sarah Dalton & Ellie Hodges & Lidia Horvat & Ellen Kerrins & Julie Marker & Miche, 2022. "Consumer engagement in health care policy, research and services: A systematic review and meta-analysis of methods and effects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-26, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0261808
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261808
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0261808
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0261808&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0261808?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Serena Barello & Guendalina Graffigna & Elena Vegni, 2012. "Patient Engagement as an Emerging Challenge for Healthcare Services: Mapping the Literature," Nursing Research and Practice, Hindawi, vol. 2012, pages 1-7, October.
    2. Degeling, Chris & Carter, Stacy M. & Rychetnik, Lucie, 2015. "Which public and why deliberate? – A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 114-121.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Degeling, Chris & Rychetnik, Lucie & Street, Jackie & Thomas, Rae & Carter, Stacy M., 2017. "Influencing health policy through public deliberation: Lessons learned from two decades of Citizens'/community juries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 166-171.
    2. Mark Fabian & Anna Alexandrova & Yamini Cinamon Nair, 2023. "Coproducing Wellbeing Policy: A Theory of Thriving in Financial Hardship," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(7), pages 2309-2330, October.
    3. Dale, Elina & Evans, David B. & Gopinathan, Unni & Kurowski, Christoph & Norheim, Ole F. & Ottersen, Trygve & Voorhoeve, Alex, 2023. "Open and inclusive: fair processes for financing universal health coverage," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119795, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Reckers-Droog, Vivian & Jansen, Maarten & Bijlmakers, Leon & Baltussen, Rob & Brouwer, Werner & van Exel, Job, 2020. "How does participating in a deliberative citizens panel on healthcare priority setting influence the views of participants?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 143-151.
    5. Ruben Andreas Sakowsky, 2021. "Disentangling the welfarism/extra‐welfarism distinction: Towards a more fine‐grained categorization," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(9), pages 2307-2311, September.
    6. Parker, Lisa, 2017. "Including values in evidence-based policy making for breast screening: An empirically grounded tool to assist expert decision makers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(7), pages 793-799.
    7. Peter Coals & Dawn Burnham & Paul J. Johnson & Andrew Loveridge & David W. Macdonald & Vivienne L. Williams & John A. Vucetich, 2019. "Deep Uncertainty, Public Reason, the Conservation of Biodiversity and the Regulation of Markets for Lion Skeletons," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-15, September.
    8. Gian Maria Campedelli, 2021. "Where are we? Using Scopus to map the literature at the intersection between artificial intelligence and research on crime," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 503-530, November.
    9. Ruth Wouters & Bieke De Fraine & Maarten Simons, 2019. "What is at Stake in Deliberative Inquiry? A Review About a Deliberative Practice," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 193-217, April.
    10. Fiske, Amelia & Buyx, Alena & Prainsack, Barbara, 2020. "The double-edged sword of digital self-care: Physician perspectives from Northern Germany," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    11. Jianming Wang & Tsung Piao Chou & Chia-Pin Chen & Xiangzhi Bu, 2020. "Leaders’ Future Orientation and Public Health Investment Intention: A Moderated Mediation Model of Self-Efficacy and Perceived Social Support," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-15, September.
    12. Alkire (née Nasr), Linda & O'Connor, Genevieve E. & Myrden, Susan & Köcher, Sören, 2020. "Patient experience in the digital age: An investigation into the effect of generational cohorts," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    13. Schoemaker, Casper G. & van Loon, Jeanne & Achterberg, Peter W. & van den Berg, Matthijs & Harbers, Maartje M. & den Hertog, Frank R.J. & Hilderink, Henk & Kommer, Geertjan & Melse, Johan & van Oers, , 2019. "The Public Health Status and Foresight report 2014: Four normative perspectives on a healthier Netherlands in 2040," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(3), pages 252-259.
    14. Smith, K.E. & Macintyre, A.K. & Weakley, S. & Hill, S.E. & Escobar, O. & Fergie, G., 2021. "Public understandings of potential policy responses to health inequalities: Evidence from a UK national survey and citizens’ juries in three UK cities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).
    15. Ravensbergen, W.M. & Drewes, Y.M. & Hilderink, H.B.M. & Verschuuren, M. & Gussekloo, J. & Vonk, R.A.A., 2019. "Combined impact of future trends on healthcare utilisation of older people: A Delphi study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(10), pages 947-954.
    16. Sobo, Elisa J., 2016. "What is herd immunity, and how does it relate to pediatric vaccination uptake? US parent perspectives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 187-195.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0261808. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.