Health care decision-makers often face calls for greater public participation or see increasing public engagement as part of their organizational mandate. This article identifies six questions decision-makers must consider when deciding whether to formally engage the public or other stakeholders around a particular health care issue. These questions focus on (1) the clarity of the issue for public engagement, (2) the appropriateness of the issue for public engagement, (3) the extent to which there are viable options, (4) the role for the public, (5) whether the public likely want to be involved and (6) consideration of the expected advantages and disadvantages of public engagement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GrayRFitchMGreenbergMShapiroS. Consumer participation in cancer system planning. Journal of Palliative Care, 1995; 11(4): 27–33.
2.
GauvinF-PAbelsonJ. Primer on public involvement. Prepared for Health Council of Canada; 2006. [Accessed January 31, 2008]. Available from: www.healthcouncilcanada.ca.
3.
MurphyNJ. Citizen deliberation in setting health-care priorities. Health Expectations, 2005; 8(2): 172–81.
4.
Transparency, participation, and accountability. (Editorial). Canadian HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Review, 2003; 8(1): 5–6.
5.
MaloffBBilanDThurstonW. Enhancing public input into decision making: Development of the Calgary Regional Health Authority Public Participation Framework. Family & Community Health, 2000; 23(1): 66–78.
6.
AndersonJM. Empowering patients: Issues and strategies. Social Sciences & Medicine, 1996; 43(5): 697–705.
7.
HigginsJW. Closer to home: The case for experiential participation in health reform. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 1999; 90(1): 30–4.
8.
AbelsonJEylesJ. Public participation and citizen governance in the Canadian health system. In: ForestP-GMcIntoshTMarchildonG, editors. Changing health care in Canada: The Romanow Papers: volume 2 (pp. 279–311). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press; 2004.
9.
HarrisonSDowswellGMilewaT. Guest editorial: Public and user involvement in the UK National Health Service. Health & Social Care in the Community, 2002; 10(2): 63–6.
10.
SangB. Choice, participation and accountability: Assessing the potential impact of legislation promoting patient and public involvement in health in the UK. Health Expectations, 2004; 7(3);187–90.
11.
LitvaACoastJDonovanJEylesJShepherdMTacchiJ. “The public is too subjective”: Public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Social Science & Medicine, 2002; 54(12): 1825–37.
12.
AbelsonJForestP-GCasebeerAMacKeanGMaloffBMustoR. Towards more meaningful, informed and effective public consultation. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, 2004. [Accessed January 31, 2008]. Available from: www.chsrf.ca.
13.
ZerhouniE. Enhancing public input and transparency in the National Institutes of Health Research priority-setting process. National Institutes of Health Director's Council of Public Representatives; 2004. [Accessed July, 23, 2008]. Available from: Copr.nih.gov.
14.
CoulterAEllinsJ. Effectiveness of strategies for informing, educating, and involving patients. British Medical Journal, 2007;(335):24–7.
15.
CoulterA. After Bristol: Putting patients at the centre. Quality and Safety in Healthcare, 2002, 11; 186–8.
16.
DeberRBKraetschmerNUrowitzSSharpeN. Do people want to be autonomous patients? Preferred roles in treatment decision-making in several patient populations. Health Expectations, 2007; 10(3): 248–58.
17.
DeberRBKraetschmerNIrvineJ. What role do patients wish to play in treatment decision making?Archives of Internal Medicine, 1996; 156(13): 1414–20.
18.
KassirerJP. Adding insult to injury. Usurping patients' prerogatives. New England Journal of Medicine, 1983; 308(15): 898–901.
19.
WilsonS. Consumer empowerment in the mental health field. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 1996; 15(2): 69–85.
20.
RossK. The emergence of stakeholder contributions. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 2000; 19(2): 156–61.
21.
AbelsonJLomasJEylesJBirchSVeenstraG. Does the community want devolved authority? Results of deliberative polling in Ontario. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1995; 153(4): 403–12.
22.
RathwellTDeberRKennyNNestmanLNevilleDConradP. Building a public dialogue framework for defining the medicare basket. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, 2006. [Accessed January 31, 2008]. Available from: www.chsrf.ca.
23.
ChafeRNevilleDRathwellTDeberRKennyNNestmanL. Annotated bibliography of Canadian public involvement in health care governance (1980–2007); 2008. Available from: www.dal.ca.
24.
VeatchRM. Terri Schiavo, Son Hudson, and ‘nonbeneficial’ medical treatments. Health Affairs, 2005; 24 (4): 976–9.
25.
LomasJ. Reluctant rationers: Public input to health care priorities. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 1997; 2(2): 103–11.
26.
TritterJMcCallumA. The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy, 2006; 76(2): 156–68.
27.
KennyN. What good is health care?Canadian Health Association Press; 2002.
28.
DeberRWilliamsA. Policy, payment and participation: Long-term care reform in Ontario. Canadian Journal on Aging, 1995; 14(2): 294–318.
29.
ArnsteinS. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 1969; 35(4): 216–24.
30.
MaxwellJRosellSForestP-G. Giving citizens a voice in health care policy in Canada. British Medical Journal, 2003; 326: 1031–3.
31.
SchattschneiderEE. The semisovereign people: A realist's view of democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1964.
32.
MarmorTMoroneJ. Representing consumer interests: Imbalanced markets, health planning and the HSAs. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Health and Society, 1980; 58(1): 125–65.
33.
ChafeRNevilleDRathwellTDeberRKennyKNestmanL. A framework for involving the public in the medicare coverage decisions. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, 2007. [Accessed January 31, 2008]. Available from: http://schoolofhealthadministration.dal.ca
