Disentangling patient and public involvement in healthcare decisions: why the difference matters

Mio Fredriksson, Jonathan Q. Tritter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Patient and public involvement has become an integral aspect of many developed health systems and is judged to be an essential driver for reform. However, little attention has been paid to the distinctions between patients and the public, and the views of patients are often seen to encompass those of the general public. Using an ideal-type approach, we analyse crucial distinctions between patient involvement and public involvement using examples from Sweden and England. We highlight that patients have sectional interests as health service users in contrast to citizens who engage as a public policy agent reflecting societal interests. Patients draw on experiential knowledge and focus on output legitimacy and performance accountability, aim at typical representativeness, and a direct responsiveness to individual needs and preferences. In contrast, the public contributes with collective perspectives generated from diversity, centres on input legitimacy achieved through statistical representativeness, democratic accountability and indirect responsiveness to general citizen preferences. Thus, using patients as proxies for the public fails to achieve intended goals and benefits of involvement. We conclude that understanding and measuring the impact of patient and public involvement can only develop with the application of a clearer comprehension of the differences.

LanguageEnglish
Pages95–111
Number of pages12
JournalSociology of health and illness
Volume39
Issue number1
Early online date11 Nov 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 9 Jan 2017

Fingerprint

Delivery of Health Care
Illegitimacy
legitimacy
Social Responsibility
experiential knowledge
citizen
responsibility
ideal type
Patient Participation
Sweden
comprehension
health service
public policy
Proxy
driver
Public Policy
England
Health Services
reform
health

Bibliographical note

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Fredriksson, M., & Tritter, J. Q. (2016). Disentangling patient and public involvement in healthcare decisions: why the difference matters. Sociology of health and illness (39)11, 95-111, which has been published in final form at 10.1111/1467-9566.12483. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving

Keywords

  • accountability
  • citizen participation
  • legitimacy
  • patient and public involvement
  • patient empowerment
  • responsiveness

Cite this

@article{15b45eb48c844c0592027174b6302ca8,
title = "Disentangling patient and public involvement in healthcare decisions: why the difference matters",
abstract = "Patient and public involvement has become an integral aspect of many developed health systems and is judged to be an essential driver for reform. However, little attention has been paid to the distinctions between patients and the public, and the views of patients are often seen to encompass those of the general public. Using an ideal-type approach, we analyse crucial distinctions between patient involvement and public involvement using examples from Sweden and England. We highlight that patients have sectional interests as health service users in contrast to citizens who engage as a public policy agent reflecting societal interests. Patients draw on experiential knowledge and focus on output legitimacy and performance accountability, aim at typical representativeness, and a direct responsiveness to individual needs and preferences. In contrast, the public contributes with collective perspectives generated from diversity, centres on input legitimacy achieved through statistical representativeness, democratic accountability and indirect responsiveness to general citizen preferences. Thus, using patients as proxies for the public fails to achieve intended goals and benefits of involvement. We conclude that understanding and measuring the impact of patient and public involvement can only develop with the application of a clearer comprehension of the differences.",
keywords = "accountability, citizen participation, legitimacy, patient and public involvement, patient empowerment, responsiveness",
author = "Mio Fredriksson and Tritter, {Jonathan Q.}",
note = "This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Fredriksson, M., & Tritter, J. Q. (2016). Disentangling patient and public involvement in healthcare decisions: why the difference matters. Sociology of health and illness (39)11, 95-111, which has been published in final form at 10.1111/1467-9566.12483. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "9",
doi = "10.1111/1467-9566.12483",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "95–111",
journal = "Sociology of health and illness",
issn = "0141-9889",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

Disentangling patient and public involvement in healthcare decisions : why the difference matters. / Fredriksson, Mio; Tritter, Jonathan Q.

In: Sociology of health and illness, Vol. 39, No. 1, 09.01.2017, p. 95–111.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Disentangling patient and public involvement in healthcare decisions

T2 - Sociology of health and illness

AU - Fredriksson, Mio

AU - Tritter, Jonathan Q.

N1 - This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Fredriksson, M., & Tritter, J. Q. (2016). Disentangling patient and public involvement in healthcare decisions: why the difference matters. Sociology of health and illness (39)11, 95-111, which has been published in final form at 10.1111/1467-9566.12483. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving

PY - 2017/1/9

Y1 - 2017/1/9

N2 - Patient and public involvement has become an integral aspect of many developed health systems and is judged to be an essential driver for reform. However, little attention has been paid to the distinctions between patients and the public, and the views of patients are often seen to encompass those of the general public. Using an ideal-type approach, we analyse crucial distinctions between patient involvement and public involvement using examples from Sweden and England. We highlight that patients have sectional interests as health service users in contrast to citizens who engage as a public policy agent reflecting societal interests. Patients draw on experiential knowledge and focus on output legitimacy and performance accountability, aim at typical representativeness, and a direct responsiveness to individual needs and preferences. In contrast, the public contributes with collective perspectives generated from diversity, centres on input legitimacy achieved through statistical representativeness, democratic accountability and indirect responsiveness to general citizen preferences. Thus, using patients as proxies for the public fails to achieve intended goals and benefits of involvement. We conclude that understanding and measuring the impact of patient and public involvement can only develop with the application of a clearer comprehension of the differences.

AB - Patient and public involvement has become an integral aspect of many developed health systems and is judged to be an essential driver for reform. However, little attention has been paid to the distinctions between patients and the public, and the views of patients are often seen to encompass those of the general public. Using an ideal-type approach, we analyse crucial distinctions between patient involvement and public involvement using examples from Sweden and England. We highlight that patients have sectional interests as health service users in contrast to citizens who engage as a public policy agent reflecting societal interests. Patients draw on experiential knowledge and focus on output legitimacy and performance accountability, aim at typical representativeness, and a direct responsiveness to individual needs and preferences. In contrast, the public contributes with collective perspectives generated from diversity, centres on input legitimacy achieved through statistical representativeness, democratic accountability and indirect responsiveness to general citizen preferences. Thus, using patients as proxies for the public fails to achieve intended goals and benefits of involvement. We conclude that understanding and measuring the impact of patient and public involvement can only develop with the application of a clearer comprehension of the differences.

KW - accountability

KW - citizen participation

KW - legitimacy

KW - patient and public involvement

KW - patient empowerment

KW - responsiveness

UR - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/10.1111/1467-9566.12483/abstract

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85002730347&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1467-9566.12483

DO - 10.1111/1467-9566.12483

M3 - Article

VL - 39

SP - 95

EP - 111

JO - Sociology of health and illness

JF - Sociology of health and illness

SN - 0141-9889

IS - 1

ER -