Delving Into the Details of Evaluating Public Engagement Initiatives; Comment on “Metrics and Evaluation Tools for Patient Engagement in Healthcare Organization- and System-Level Decision-Making: A Systematic Review”

Document Type : Commentary

Author

National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

Abstract

Initiatives to engage the public in health policy decisions have been widely endorsed and used, yet agreed upon methods for systematically evaluating the effectiveness of these initiatives remain to be developed. Dukhanin, Topazian, and DeCamp have thus developed a useful taxonomy of evaluation criteria derived from a systematic review of published evaluation tools that might serve as the basis for systematic evaluation. In considering the application of such a taxonomy, it is important to appreciate the political space in which health policy decisions occur. In this context, public engagement initiatives are likely to have a modest and unpredictable impact on policy decisions. Other goals, aside from influencing policy decisions, such as informing the public about issues, identifying the public’s values, enhancing public support for decisions, and promoting public discourse, are likely to be more feasible. While Dukanan and colleagues did not aim to do so, future efforts to align guidance for planning public engagement initiatives with evaluation tools would be useful to promote the success of public engagement initiatives.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. WHO Declaration of Alma-Ata. WHO Chronicle. 1978;32:428-430.
  2. Dukhanin V, Topazian R, DeCamp M. Metrics and evaluation tools for patient engagement in healthcare organization—and system-level decision-making: a systematic review. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(10):889–903. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2018.43
  3. Institute for Local Government. Public Engagement and Why I Should Do It. http://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/ilg_what_is_public_engagement_and_why_should_i_do_it_8.31.16.pdf.  Accessed July 18, 2018. Published 2016.
  4. Thurston WE, MacKean G, Vollman A, et al. Public participation in regional health policy: a theoretical framework. Health Policy. 2004;73:237-252.
  5. Sabik L and Lie R. Priority setting in health care: Lessons from the experiences of eight countries. Int J Equity Health. 2008;7:4. doi:10.1186/1475-9276-7-4
  6. Bolsewicz Alderman K, Hipgrave D, Jimenez-Soto E. Public engagement in health priority setting in low- and middle income countries: current trends and considerations for policy. PLoS Med. 2013;10(8):e1001495. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001495
  7. Abelson J, Forest P-G, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin FP. Deliberations about public deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(2):239-251.
  8. Health Quality Ontario. Choosing Methods for Patient and Caregiver Engagement: A Guide for Health Care Organizations. http://www.hqontario.ca/Portals/0/Documents/qi/choosing-methods-pce.pdf.  Accessed July 27, 2018.
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume 8, Issue 4
April 2019
Pages 247-249

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 01 August 2018
  • Revise Date: 09 December 2018
  • Accept Date: 09 December 2018
  • First Publish Date: 01 April 2019

Share

How to cite

Statistics