Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Who wants to be involved in health care decisions? Comparing preferences for individual and collective involvement in England and Sweden

Authors: Mio Fredriksson, Max Eriksson, Jonathan Tritter

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is framed as positive for individuals, the health system, public health, as well as for communities and society as a whole. We investigated whether preferences for PPI differed between two countries with Beveridge type health systems–Sweden and England. We measured willingness to be involved in individual treatment decisions and in decisions about the organization and provision of local health and social care services.

Methods

This was a comparative cross-sectional study of the general population’s preferences. Together, the two samples included 3125 respondents; 1625 in England and 1500 in Sweden. Country differences were analysed in a multinomial regression model controlling for gender, age and educational attainment.

Results

Overall, 68% of respondents wanted a passive patient role and 44% wanted to be involved in local decisions about organization and provision of services. In comparison with in Sweden, they were in England less likely to want a health professional such as a GP or consultant to make decisions about their treatment and also more likely to want to make their own decisions. They were also less likely to want to be involved in local service development decisions. An increased likelihood of wanting to be involved in organizational decision-making was associated with individuals wanting to make their own treatment decisions. Women were less likely to want health professionals to make decisions and more likely to want to be involved in organizational decisions.

Conclusions

An effective health system that ensures public health must integrate an effective approach to PPI both in individual treatment decisions and shaping local health and social care priorities. To be effective, involvement activities must take in to account the variation in the desire for involvement and the implications that this has for equity. More work is needed to understand the relationship between the desire to be involved and actually being involved, but both appear related to judgements of the impact of involvement on health care decisions.
Literature
1.
Tritter JQ. Revolution or evolution: the challenges of conceptualizing patient and public involvement in a consumerist world. Health Expect. 2009;12(3):275–87.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
3.
Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2014;7(4):387–95.CrossRef
4.
5.
Coulter A. Engaging patients in healthcare. Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: McGraw Hill/Open University Press; 2011.
6.
Coulter A, Ellins J. Patient-focused interventions. A review of the evidence. London: Picker Institute Europe, The Health Foundation; 2006.
7.
Or Z, Cases C, Lisac M, Vrangbæk K, Winblad U, Bevan G. Are health problems systemic? Politics of access and choice under Beveridge and Bismarck systems. Health Econ Policy Law. 2010;5(Special Issue 03):269–93.CrossRefPubMedCentral
8.
van der Zee J, Kroneman MW. Bismarck or Beveridge: a beauty contest between dinosaurs. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;26:7. 94
9.
Charles C, DeMaio S. Lay participation in health care decision making: a conceptual framework. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1993;18(4):881–904.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Fraenkel L, McGraw S. Participation in medical decision making: the Patients’ perspective. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27(5):533–8.CrossRef
11.
Benbassat J, Pilpel D, Tidhar M. Patients’ preferences for participation in clinical decision making: a review of published surveys. J Behav Med. 1998;24(2):81–8.CrossRef
12.
Coulter A, Magee H. The European patient of the future. Philadelphia; Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2003.
13.
Arora NK, McHorney CA. Patient preferences for medical decision making: who really wants to participate? Med Care. 2000;38(3):335–41.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Deber RB, Kraetschmer N, Urowitz S, Sharpe N. Do people want to be autonomous patients? Preferred roles in treatment decision-making in several patient populations. Health Expect. 2007;10(3):248–58.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Nota I, Drossaert CHC, Taal E, Vonkeman HE, van de Laar MAFJ. Patient participation in decisions about disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15(1):333.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Levinson W, Kao A, Kuby A, Thisted RA. Not all patients want to participate in decision making: a national study of public preferences. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(6):531–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
18.
Litva A, Coast J, Donovan J, Eyles J, Shepherd M, Tacchi J, et al. ‘the public is too subjective’: public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54(12):1825–37.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Morgan S, Miller J. Communicating about gifts of life: the effect of knowledge, attitudes, and altruism on behavior and behavioral intenstion regarding organ donation. J Appl Commun Res. 2002;30(2):163–78.
20.
Beresford P. Beyond the usual suspects. London: Shaping Our Lives; 2013.
21.
de Freitas C, Martin G. Inclusive public participation in health: policy, practice and theoretical contributions to promote the involvement of marginalised groups in healthcare. Soc Sci Med. 2015;135:31.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Parsons S, Coulter A, Askham J. Where are the patients in decision making about their own care? Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2008.
23.
European Commission: WHITE PAPER Together for Health: A Strategic Approach for the EU 2008–2013. Brussels: European Commission; 2007.
24.
25.
The Swedish National Institute of Public Health. Target area 1. Participation and influence in society. Knowledge Basis for Public Health Policy Report 2010. Stockholm; 2011.
26.
Docteur E, Coulter A. Patient-centeredness in Sweden’s health system: an assessmentand six steps for progress. Vol. 2012: 7th Authority of care analysis: Solna, Sweden; 2012.
27.
Magnussen JP, Saltman RB, Martinussen PE. Introduction: the Nordic model of health care. In: Magnussen JP, Vrangbæk K, Saltman RB, editors. Nordic health care systems: recent reforms and current policy challenges. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press; 2009.
28.
Tritter JQ, Koivusalo M, Ollila E, Dorfman P. Globalisation, markets, and healthcare policy: redrawing the patient as consumer. New York; Routledge; 2010.
29.
Fredriksson M. Is patient choice democratizing Swedish primary care? Health policy 2013; 111(1):95-98.
30.
Anell A. Choice and privatisation in Swedish primary care. Health Econ Policy Law. 2011;6(4):549–69.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Gibson A, Britten N, Lynch J. Theoretical directions for an emancipatory concept of patient and public involvement. Health. 2012;16(5):531–47.CrossRefPubMed
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
Magnussen JP, Vrangbæk K, Saltman RB. Nordic health care systems: recent reforms and current policy challenges. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press; 2009.
37.
Arvidsson C, Zambon F, Östergren P-O.Taking a participatory approach to development and better health. Examples from the Regions of health Network. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2015.
38.
Bardo JW, Yeager SJ, Klingsporn MJ. Preliminary assessment of format-specific central tendency and leniency error in summated rating scales. Percept Mot Skills. 1982;54(1):227–34.CrossRef
39.
Thompson AG. The meaning of patient involvement and participation in health care consultations: a taxonomy. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(6):1297–310.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Kraetschmer N, Sharpe N, Urowitz S, Deber RB. How does trust affect patient preferences for participation in decision-making? Health Expect. 2004;7(4):317–26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
42.
43.
Davis K, Stremikis K, Squires D, Schoen C. 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally. New York: The Commonwealth Fund; 2014. 
44.
Winblad U, Ringard Å. Meeting rising public expectations: the changing roles of patients and citizens. In: Magnussen JP, Vrangbæk K, Saltman RB, editors. Nordic health care systems: recent reforms and current policy challenges. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press; 2009.
45.
Foot C, Gilburt H, Dunn P, Jabbal J, Seale B, Goodrich J, Buck D, Taylor J. People in control of their own health and care. London: The King’s Fund and National Voices; 2014.
46.
Wang H, et al. Global, regional, and national life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes of death, 1980–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet. 2016;388(10053):1459–544.
47.
Ocloo J, Matthews R. From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;0:1–7.
48.
Gjerberg E, Lillemoen L, Førde R, Pedersen R. End-of-life care communications and shared decision-making in Norwegian nursing homes - experiences and perspectives of patients and relatives. BMC Geriatr. 2015;19:15. 103
49.
50.
Forbat L, Hubbard G, Kearney N. Patient and public involvement: models and muddles. J Clin Nurs. 2009;18(18):2547–54.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Conklin A, Morris Z, Nolte E. What is the evidence base for public involvement in health-care policy?: results of a systematic scoping review. Health Expect. 2015;18(2):153–65.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Trägårdh L. State and civil society in northern Europe: the Swedish model reconsidered, vol. 3. Oxford;New York, Berghahn books; 2007.
53.
Bastiaens H, Van Royen P, Pavlic DR, Raposo V, Baker R. Older people's preferences for involvement in their own care: a qualitative study in primary health care in 11 European countries. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;68(1):33–42.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Bergstrom A. Civic Democracy in Skåne [Citizen Democracy in Skane]. Gothenburg: SOM Institute; 2012.
55.
Birchall J, Simmons R. User power. The participation of users in public services. London: National Counsumer Council; 2004.
56.
57.
58.
Metadata
Title
Who wants to be involved in health care decisions? Comparing preferences for individual and collective involvement in England and Sweden
Authors
Mio Fredriksson
Max Eriksson
Jonathan Tritter
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4534-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Public Health 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Improving social accountability processes in the health sector in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review

Research article

Parents’ and caregivers’ experiences and behaviours when eating out with children with a food hypersensitivity

Research article

Universal health coverage in the context of population ageing: What determines health insurance enrolment in rural Ghana?

Research article

Experiences of young smokers in quitting smoking in twin cities of Pakistan: a phenomenological study

Research article

A survey of the knowledge, attitudes and practices on Zika virus in New York City

Research article

Limitations of the S-TOFHLA in measuring poor numeracy: a cross-sectional study