A sociological perspective on public participation in health care

Contandriopoulos, Damien

doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(03)00164-3

Cited by 127 publications

(133 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

120

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In health service development, a lack of consensus of terminology, and overlapping structures (Mockford et al, 2011), potentially undermine PI, limiting the ability of the public to influence, or contribute appropriately to, strategic discussions (Baggott, 2005). However, others suggest that limitations of PI, such as perceived lack of impact on organisational outcomes (Contandriopoulos, 2004), cannot be associated entirely with the coherence of policy or the structures in place to encourage PI.…”

Section: Public Involvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the benefits of PI for health and social care services (Mockford et al 2011), much existing research suggests that, while there is strong policy support, its potential contribution is stymied by contested terminology, limitations in the underpinning evidence base, different attitudes to PI, and variable attempts at implementation (Staniszewska et al 2011, Baggott, 2005Contandriopoulos, 2004). Commentators note the impact of professional hierarchies on the translation of PI policy into practice in public sector organisations (Boivin et al, 2014;Litva et al, 2002;Martin, 2011;Rutter et al, 2004), but neglect the impact of managerial influences on PI (Renedo et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Moving from rational to normative ideologies of control over public involvement: A case of continued managerial dominance

Croft

Currie

Staniszewska

2016

Social Science & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public Involvement (PI) is a strategic priority in global healthcare settings, yet can be seen as peripheral during decision making processes. Whilst extant research acknowledges variations in how policy is translated into practice, the majority attribute it to the limiting influence of professional hierarchies on the perceived 'legitimacy' of PI. Drawing on examples of three commissioning organisations within the English NHS, we outline how the variance in policy implementation for PI can be attributed to influence from the managers rather than professionals. In doing so we explore how rational ideologies of managerial control negatively impact PI. However, we also illustrate how PI alluded to in policy can be more successfully realised when organisational managers enact normative ideologies of control. Notwithstanding this assertion, we argue managerial domination exists even in the case of normative ideologies of control, to the detriment of more radical PI in service development.2

show abstract

Section: Public Involvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving from rational to normative ideologies of control over public involvement: A case of continued managerial dominance

Croft

Currie

Staniszewska

2016

Social Science & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Confronted with these kinds of challenges to their legitimacy, involved members of the public respond by seeking to justify their representativeness (Barnes, Newman, Knops & Sullivan, 2003;Contandriopoulos, 2004;Barnes et al, 2007). However, given the multiplicity of meanings attached to the notion, articulating a representative legitimacy that is also acceptable to professionals is not an easy task.…”

Section: Public Participation and The Struggle For Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Exactly how such negotiations play out in practice, however, will differ according to a number of variables, and Contandriopoulos (2004) and Barnes et al (2007) both find considerable divergences among their case studies of participation. The field in which participation is proposed, the nature of the public to be represented, the rationale for participation, etc.…”

Section: Public Participation and The Struggle For Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By seeking to undermine the legitimacy of those involved (Beresford & Campbell, 1994), controlling the course of meetings (Williams, 2004), or selectively implementing the suggestions of publicparticipation processes (Milewa, Valentine & Calnan, 1999), professionals and managers are seen to retain control over decision-making processes, or manipulate public participation to ensure that it advances their own interests (Harrison & Mort, 1998;Milewa et al, 1999;Tritter, Barley, Daykin, Evans, McNeill, Rimmer et al, 2003). In order to further their own influence, involved members of the public too are forced to defend their own legitimacy, and so are drawn into a complex discursive game with staff, as each group seeks to assert or undermine the legitimacy of participants (Contandriopoulos, 2004). This paper seeks to further understanding of this process by drawing on a qualitative study of a particular example of public participation-service-user involvement in cancer-genetics services-and the way in which the bounds of legitimacy of this process are contested by those involved.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Representativeness, legitimacy and power in public involvement in health-service management

Martin

2008

Social Science & Medicine

130

170

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. Representativeness, legitimacy and power in public involvement in healthcare management Graham P. MartinPublic participation in health-service management is an increasingly prominent policy internationally. Frequently, though, academic studies have found it marginalized by health professionals who, keen to retain control over decision-making, undermine the legitimacy of involved members of the public, in particular by questioning their representativeness. This paper examines this negotiation of representative legitimacy between staff and involved users by drawing on a qualitative study of service-user involvement in pilot cancer-genetics services recently introduced in England, using interviews, participant observation and documentary analysis. In contrast to the findings of much of the literature, health professionals identified some degree of representative legitimacy in the contributions made by users. However, the ways in which staff and users constructed representativeness diverged significantly. Where staff valued the identities of users as biomedical and lay subjects, users themselves described the legitimacy of their contribution in more expansive terms of knowledge and citizenship.My analysis seeks to show how disputes over representativeness relate not just to a struggle for power according to contrasting group interests, but also to a substantive divergence in understanding of the nature of representativeness in the context of state-orchestrated efforts to increase public participation. This divergence might suggest problems with the enactment of such aspirations in practice; alternatively, however, contestation of representative legitimacy might be understood as reflecting ambiguities in policy-level objectives for participation, which secure implementation by accommodating the divergent constructions of those charged with putting initiatives into practice.

show abstract

Patient and Public Involvement in Service Design and Evaluation

Ong¹,

Wood²

2005

Intermediate and Continuing Care: Policy and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A sociological perspective on public participation in health care

Cited by 127 publications

References 36 publications

Moving from rational to normative ideologies of control over public involvement: A case of continued managerial dominance

Moving from rational to normative ideologies of control over public involvement: A case of continued managerial dominance

Representativeness, legitimacy and power in public involvement in health-service management

Patient and Public Involvement in Service Design and Evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About