Major health service transformation and the public voice: conflict, challenge or complicity?

47Citations
Citations of this article
82Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objectives: Calls for major reconfigurations of health services have been accompanied by recommendations that wide ranging stakeholders be involved. In particular, patients and the wider public are seen as critical contributors as both funders and beneficiaries of public health care. But public involvement is fraught with challenges, and little research has focused on involvement in the health service transformation initiatives. This paper examines the design and function of public involvement in reconfiguration of health services within the English NHS. Methods: Qualitative data including interviews, observation and documents were collected in two health service ‘transformation’ programmes; interviews include involved public and professional participants. Data were analysed using parallel deductive and inductive approaches. Results: Public involvement in the programmes was extensive but its terms of reference, and the individuals involved, were restricted by policy pressures and programme objectives. The degree to which participants descriptively or substantively represented the wider public was limited; participants sought to ‘speak for’ this public but their views on what was ‘acceptable’ and likely to influence decision-making led them to constrain their contributions. Conclusions: Public involvement in two major service reconfiguration programmes in England was seen as important and functional, and could not be characterized as tokenistic. Yet involvement in these programmes fell short of normative ideals, and could inadvertently reduce, rather than enlarge, public influence on health service reconfiguration decisions.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Martin, G. P., Carter, P., & Dent, M. (2018). Major health service transformation and the public voice: conflict, challenge or complicity? Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 23(1), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819617728530

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free