Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

The impact of status and social context on health service co-design: an example from a collaborative improvement initiative in UK primary care

Authors: Ian Litchfield, Louise Bentham, Ann Hill, Richard J. McManus, Richard Lilford, Sheila Greenfield

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Increasingly, collaborative participatory methods requiring open and honest interaction between a range of stakeholders are being used to improve health service delivery. To be successful these methodologies must incorporate perspectives from a range of patients and staff. Yet, if unaccounted for, the complex relationships amongst staff groups and between patients and providers can affect the veracity and applicability of co-designed solutions.

Methods

Two focus groups convened to discuss suggestions for the improvement of blood testing and result communication in primary care. The groups were mixed of patients and staff in various combinations drawn from the four participating study practices. Here we present a secondary mixed-method analysis of the interaction between participants in both groups using sociogrammatic and thematic analysis.

Results

Despite a similar mix of practice staff and patients the two groups produced contrasting discussions, seemingly influenced by status and social context. The sociograms provided a useful insight into the flow of conversation and highlighted the dominance of the senior staff member in the first focus group. Within the three key themes of social context, the alliances formed between participants and the fluidity of the roles assumed manifested differently between groups apparently dictated by the different profile of the participants of each.

Conclusions

For primary care service improvement attention must be paid to the background of participants when convening collaborative service improvement groups as status and imported hierarchies can have significant connotations for the data produced.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Department of Health. The NHS Plan: a plan for investment, a plan for reform. London: Crown Copyright; 2000. Department of Health. The NHS Plan: a plan for investment, a plan for reform. London: Crown Copyright; 2000.
3.
go back to reference Nolan M. Has nursing lost its way? Towards an ethos of interdisciplinary practice. BMJ. 1995;311(7000):305–7.CrossRef Nolan M. Has nursing lost its way? Towards an ethos of interdisciplinary practice. BMJ. 1995;311(7000):305–7.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Barnes M, Cotterell P. Critical perspectives on user involvement. Bristol: Policy Press; 2011.CrossRef Barnes M, Cotterell P. Critical perspectives on user involvement. Bristol: Policy Press; 2011.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Morrow E, Boaz A, Brearley S, Ross F. Handbook of service user involvement in nursing and healthcare research. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.CrossRef Morrow E, Boaz A, Brearley S, Ross F. Handbook of service user involvement in nursing and healthcare research. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Wilson PM, Kendall S, Brooks F. The expert patients programme: a paradox of patient empowerment and medical dominance. Health Soc Care Community. 2007;15(5):426–38.CrossRef Wilson PM, Kendall S, Brooks F. The expert patients programme: a paradox of patient empowerment and medical dominance. Health Soc Care Community. 2007;15(5):426–38.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Carter P, Beech R, Coxon D, Thomas MJ, Jink C. Mobilising the experiential knowledge of clinicians, patients and carers for applied health-care research. Contemporary social science: journal of the academy of. Soc Sci. 2013;8(3):307–20. Carter P, Beech R, Coxon D, Thomas MJ, Jink C. Mobilising the experiential knowledge of clinicians, patients and carers for applied health-care research. Contemporary social science: journal of the academy of. Soc Sci. 2013;8(3):307–20.
9.
go back to reference Boyd H, McKernon S, Mullin B, Old A. Improving healthcare through the use of co-design. N Z Med J. 2012;125(1357):76–87.PubMed Boyd H, McKernon S, Mullin B, Old A. Improving healthcare through the use of co-design. N Z Med J. 2012;125(1357):76–87.PubMed
11.
go back to reference Hyden LC, Bulow PH. Who's talking: drawing conclusions from focus groups some methodological considerations. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2003;6(4):305–21.CrossRef Hyden LC, Bulow PH. Who's talking: drawing conclusions from focus groups some methodological considerations. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2003;6(4):305–21.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Kidd PS, Parshall MB. Getting the focus and the group: enhancing analytical rigor in focus group research. Qual Health Res. 2000;10(3):293–308.CrossRef Kidd PS, Parshall MB. Getting the focus and the group: enhancing analytical rigor in focus group research. Qual Health Res. 2000;10(3):293–308.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Kitzinger J. The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociol Health Illness. 1994;16(1):103–21.CrossRef Kitzinger J. The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociol Health Illness. 1994;16(1):103–21.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Ward PR, Thompson J, Barber R, Armitage CJ, Boote JD, Cooper CL, Jones GL. Critical perspectives on consumer involvement in health research: epistemological dissonance and the know-do gap. J Sociol. 2010;46(1):63–82.CrossRef Ward PR, Thompson J, Barber R, Armitage CJ, Boote JD, Cooper CL, Jones GL. Critical perspectives on consumer involvement in health research: epistemological dissonance and the know-do gap. J Sociol. 2010;46(1):63–82.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Staniszewska S, Denegri S. Patient and public involvement in research: future challenges. Evidence-Based Nursing. 2013;16(3):69.CrossRef Staniszewska S, Denegri S. Patient and public involvement in research: future challenges. Evidence-Based Nursing. 2013;16(3):69.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference McDermott AM, Keating MA. Making service improvement happen: the importance of social context. J Appl Behav Sci. 2012;48(1):62–92.CrossRef McDermott AM, Keating MA. Making service improvement happen: the importance of social context. J Appl Behav Sci. 2012;48(1):62–92.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Aronson E, Ellsworth PC, Carlsmith JM, Gonzales MH. Methods of research in social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1990. Aronson E, Ellsworth PC, Carlsmith JM, Gonzales MH. Methods of research in social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1990.
20.
go back to reference Goffman E. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Double Day Anchor Books; 1959. Goffman E. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Double Day Anchor Books; 1959.
21.
go back to reference Sasson T. Crime talk: how citizens construct a social problem. Aldine Transaction: Piscataway; 1995. Sasson T. Crime talk: how citizens construct a social problem. Aldine Transaction: Piscataway; 1995.
22.
go back to reference Bloor M, Frankland J, Thomas M, Robson K. Focus groups in social research. London: Sage; 2001.CrossRef Bloor M, Frankland J, Thomas M, Robson K. Focus groups in social research. London: Sage; 2001.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B. Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. Br Dent J. 2008;204(6):291–5.CrossRef Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B. Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. Br Dent J. 2008;204(6):291–5.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Burton P. Conceptual, theoretical and practical issues in measuring the benefits of public participation. Evaluation. 2009;15(3):263–84.CrossRef Burton P. Conceptual, theoretical and practical issues in measuring the benefits of public participation. Evaluation. 2009;15(3):263–84.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Tritter JQ, McCallum A. The snakes and ladders of user involvement: moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy. 2006;76(2):156–68.CrossRef Tritter JQ, McCallum A. The snakes and ladders of user involvement: moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy. 2006;76(2):156–68.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Litchfield IJ, Bentham LM, Lilford RJ, Greenfield SM. Test result communication in primary care: clinical and office staff perspectives. Fam Pract. 2014;31(5):592–7.CrossRef Litchfield IJ, Bentham LM, Lilford RJ, Greenfield SM. Test result communication in primary care: clinical and office staff perspectives. Fam Pract. 2014;31(5):592–7.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Litchfield I, Bentham L, Hill A, McManus RJ, Lilford RJ, Greenfield S. Routine failures in the process for blood testing and the communication of results to patients in primary care: a qualitative exploration of patient and provider perspectives. BMJ Qual Safety. 2015;24(11):681–90.CrossRef Litchfield I, Bentham L, Hill A, McManus RJ, Lilford RJ, Greenfield S. Routine failures in the process for blood testing and the communication of results to patients in primary care: a qualitative exploration of patient and provider perspectives. BMJ Qual Safety. 2015;24(11):681–90.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Litchfield I, Bentham L, Lilford R, McManus RJ, Hill A, Greenfield S. Test result communication in primary care: a survey of current practice. BMJ Qual Safety. 2015;24(11):691–9.CrossRef Litchfield I, Bentham L, Lilford R, McManus RJ, Hill A, Greenfield S. Test result communication in primary care: a survey of current practice. BMJ Qual Safety. 2015;24(11):691–9.CrossRef
30.
31.
go back to reference Drahota A, Dewey A. The sociogram: a useful tool in the analysis of focus groups. Nurs Res. 2008;57(4):293.CrossRef Drahota A, Dewey A. The sociogram: a useful tool in the analysis of focus groups. Nurs Res. 2008;57(4):293.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Duggleby W. What about focus group interaction data? Qual Health Res. 2005;15(6):832–40.CrossRef Duggleby W. What about focus group interaction data? Qual Health Res. 2005;15(6):832–40.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Barbour R, Kitzinger J. Developing focus group research: politics, theory and practice. London: Sage; 1999.CrossRef Barbour R, Kitzinger J. Developing focus group research: politics, theory and practice. London: Sage; 1999.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Berliner PF. The soul of mbira: music and traditions of the Shona people of Zimbabwe. Chicago: the: University Press; 1993. Berliner PF. The soul of mbira: music and traditions of the Shona people of Zimbabwe. Chicago: the: University Press; 1993.
35.
go back to reference Berger J, Hamit Fisek M, Norman R, Zelditch M. Status characteristics and social interaction: an expectation states approach. New York: Elsevier; 1997. Berger J, Hamit Fisek M, Norman R, Zelditch M. Status characteristics and social interaction: an expectation states approach. New York: Elsevier; 1997.
36.
go back to reference Ridgeway C. Gender, status and the social psychology of expectations. In: Theory on gender/feminism on theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. p. 1993. Ridgeway C. Gender, status and the social psychology of expectations. In: Theory on gender/feminism on theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. p. 1993.
37.
go back to reference Lambert H, McKevitt C. Anthropology in health research: from qualitative methods to multidisciplinarity. BMJ. 2002;325(7357):210–3.CrossRef Lambert H, McKevitt C. Anthropology in health research: from qualitative methods to multidisciplinarity. BMJ. 2002;325(7357):210–3.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Hughes D. Paper and people: the work of the casualty reception clerk. Sociol Health Illness. 1989;11(4):382–408.CrossRef Hughes D. Paper and people: the work of the casualty reception clerk. Sociol Health Illness. 1989;11(4):382–408.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Lidstone P. Rationing housing to the homeless applicant. Hous Stud. 1994;9(4):459–72.CrossRef Lidstone P. Rationing housing to the homeless applicant. Hous Stud. 1994;9(4):459–72.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Mintzberg H. Structure in fives - designing effective organizations. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1983. Mintzberg H. Structure in fives - designing effective organizations. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1983.
42.
go back to reference Goldsmith J. A radical prescription for hospitals. Harv Bus Rev. 1989;67(3):104–11.PubMed Goldsmith J. A radical prescription for hospitals. Harv Bus Rev. 1989;67(3):104–11.PubMed
43.
go back to reference Mintzberg H. Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1983. Mintzberg H. Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1983.
44.
go back to reference Eisner M, Britten N. What do general practice receptionists think and feel about their work? Br J Gen Pract. 1999;49(439):103–6.PubMedPubMedCentral Eisner M, Britten N. What do general practice receptionists think and feel about their work? Br J Gen Pract. 1999;49(439):103–6.PubMedPubMedCentral
45.
go back to reference Gergen K. The saturated self: dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books; 1991. Gergen K. The saturated self: dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books; 1991.
48.
go back to reference Lehoux P, Poland B, Daudelin G. Focus group research and “the patient's view”. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63(8):2091–104.CrossRef Lehoux P, Poland B, Daudelin G. Focus group research and “the patient's view”. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63(8):2091–104.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The impact of status and social context on health service co-design: an example from a collaborative improvement initiative in UK primary care
Authors
Ian Litchfield
Louise Bentham
Ann Hill
Richard J. McManus
Richard Lilford
Sheila Greenfield
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0608-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2018 Go to the issue