Supporting public involvement in interview and other panels: a systematic review

Abstract

BackgroundMembers of the public are increasingly being invited to become members of a variety of different panels and boards.ObjectiveThis study aimed to systematically search the literature to identify studies relating to support or training provided to members of the public who are asked to be members of an interview panel.Search strategyA systematic search for published and unpublished studies was carried out from June to September 2015. The search methods included electronic database searching, reference list screening, citation searching and scrutinizing online sources.Inclusion criteriaWe included studies of any design including published and unpublished documents which outlined preparation or guidance relating to public participants who were members of interview panels or representatives on other types of panels or committees.Data synthesisResults were synthesised via narrative methods.Main resultsThirty‐six documents were included in the review. Scrutiny of this literature highlighted ten areas which require consideration when including members of the public on interview panels: financial resources; clarity of role; role in the interview process; role in evaluation; training; orientation/induction; information needs; terminology; support; and other public representative needs such as timing, accessibility and support with information technology.Discussion and conclusionsThe results of the review emphasize a range of elements that need to be fully considered when planning the involvement of public participants on interview panels. It highlights potential issues relating to the degree of involvement of public representatives in evaluating/grading decisions and the need for preparation and on‐going support.

Evaluation of a national training programme to support engagement in mental health services: Learning enablers and learning gains

“…Developing training programmes for enabling PPI merits attention, given its emergence as a policy imperative (Baxter et al, ; Horobin et al, ; National Institute of Health Research, ). Much of the literature on PPI concerns research, board or administrative functions (Gray‐Burrows et al, ; McMillan et al, ; Renedo, Marston, Spyridonidis, & Barlow, ; Neshkova & Guo, ).…”

“…Developing training programmes for enabling PPI merits attention, given its emergence as a policy imperative (Baxter et al, 2017;Horobin et al, 2017;National Institute of Health Research, 2012). Brainstorming, open-ended questioning, group work and role play ensured a non-didactic, inclusive approach to teaching facilitation, which is consistent with the principles of participation, while the creation of a safe non-judgemental milieu ensured engagement and inclusive practices (Tofade, Elsner, & Haines, 2013).…”

Public participation in health. A review of reviews

“…La selección directa de participantes ha sido ampliamente utilizada 12 . En estudios recientes 30,40,41 es más frecuente la selección aleatoria a partir del censo electoral (por ejemplo, consejo y paneles de ciudadanos). Entre los participantes es frecuente encontrar: personas de la comunidad, per-sonas afectadas por algún plan o decisión, representantes de agrupaciones o asociaciones, miembros de movimientos sociales y, también, asesores o personal técnico de grupos organizados 26,40 , personas mayores en situación de dependencia o enfermos con procesos crónicos (incluyendo sobre todo a pacientes de salud mental) 42 .…”

“…Otros instrumentos de participación se han basado en desarrollos a partir de las técnicas de conferencia de consenso y en otros instrumentos diseñados en los 60 y 70 para facilitar la participación en las políticas públicas 28,30 . Las técnicas cualitativas son las más extendidas 18,25 y se ha recurrido, sobre todo, a: procesos deliberativos como paneles de ciudadanos, consejo de ciudadanos, técnica Delphi, sistemas de ponderación, escalas de análogo visual, encuestas 5,23,39,41,47,48 y otras variaciones de técnicas cuantitativas como Discrete Choice Experiment 23 y otros formatos relacionados con los anteriores, como el ChoiceWork dialogue 49 .…”

“…Mullen 47 ha propuesto una lista de preguntas para ayudar a elegir y aplicar la técnica de participación de la forma más adecuada (Tabla 2). Baxter y col 41 han descrito también los elementos que deben considerarse a la hora de planificar esa participación. Por su parte, Whitty y col 50 han aconsejado combinar una técnica cualitativa de deliberación (consejo de ciudadanos) y una cuantitativa basada en el análisis de regresión para identificar aquellos factores con mayor capacidad predictiva (Discrete Choice Experiment).…”