IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0150742.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Long Term Effect on Professionals’ Knowledge, Practice and Attitudes towards User Involvement Four Years after Implementing an Organisational Development Plan: A Controlled Study

Author

Listed:
  • Marit By Rise
  • Aslak Steinsbekk

Abstract

Background: Health service organisations are increasingly implementing user involvement initiatives according to requirements from governments, such as user representation in administrational boards, better information to users, and more involvement of the users during treatment. Professionals are vital in all initiatives to enhance user involvement, and initiatives to increase involvement should influence the professionals’ practice and attitudes. The implementation of a development plan intending to enhance user involvement in a mental health hospital in Central Norway had no effect on the professionals after 16 months. The objective was therefore to investigate the long term effect on the professionals’ knowledge, practice and attitudes towards user involvement after four years. Methods: This was a non-randomized controlled study including professionals from three mental health hospitals in Central Norway. A development plan intended to enhance user participation was implemented in one of the hospitals, including establishing a patient education centre and a user office, purchasing of user expertise, appointing contact professionals for next of kin, and improving of the centre’s information and the professional culture. The professionals at two other hospitals constituted the control group. All professionals were invited to answer the Consumer Participation Questionnaire (CPQ) and additional questions, at a four year interval. Results: A total of 399 professionals participated (43% response rate). Comparing the changes in the intervention group with the changes in the control group, the results showed that the plan had improved some aspects of the professionals’ knowledge about the user involvement taking place in the hospital. In addition, some parts of the professionals’ practice of providing information to the service users was improved, and the development plan might have raised their awareness about insufficient involvement of next of kin. Conclusions: This is the first controlled study on the long term effect on professionals from implementing a development plan to enhance user participation in a mental health hospital. Since there was more effect after four years than after 16 months, this study indicates that it takes time before the effect of complex interventions to enhance patient participation in organisations can be detected among the professionals. More long-term studies are thus warranted.

Suggested Citation

  • Marit By Rise & Aslak Steinsbekk, 2016. "Long Term Effect on Professionals’ Knowledge, Practice and Attitudes towards User Involvement Four Years after Implementing an Organisational Development Plan: A Controlled Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0150742
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150742
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0150742
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0150742&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0150742?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marianne Storm & Kjell Hausken & Knud Knudsen, 2011. "Inpatient service providers’ perspectives on service user involvement in Norwegian community mental health centres," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 57(6), pages 551-563, November.
    2. Thompson, Andrew G.H., 2007. "The meaning of patient involvement and participation in health care consultations: A taxonomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 1297-1310, March.
    3. Marianne Storm & Knud Knudsen & Larry Davidson & Kjell Hausken & Jan Johannessen, 2011. ""Service user involvement in practice": The evaluation of an intervention program for service providers and inpatients in Norwegian Community Mental Health Centers," Psychosis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 29-40.
    4. Contandriopoulos, Damien, 2004. "A sociological perspective on public participation in health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 321-330, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Greer, Scott L. & Stewart, Ellen A. & Wilson, Iain & Donnelly, Peter D., 2014. "Victory for volunteerism? Scottish health board elections and participation in the welfare state," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 221-228.
    2. Lehoux, P. & Daudelin, G. & Abelson, J., 2012. "The unbearable lightness of citizens within public deliberation processes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(12), pages 1843-1850.
    3. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    4. Evelien Tonkens & Imrat Verhoeven, 2019. "The civic support paradox: Fighting unequal participation in deprived neighbourhoods," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(8), pages 1595-1610, June.
    5. Nitsch, Martina & Waldherr, Karin & Denk, Enrica & Griebler, Ursula & Marent, Benjamin & Forster, Rudolf, 2013. "Participation by different stakeholders in participatory evaluation of health promotion: A literature review," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 42-54.
    6. Dagrunn N Dyrstad & Kristin A Laugaland & Marianne Storm, 2015. "An observational study of older patients’ participation in hospital admission and discharge – exploring patient and next of kin perspectives," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(11-12), pages 1693-1706, June.
    7. Mauro Serapioni & Pedro Lopes Ferreira & Patrícia Antunes, 2014. "Participação em Saúde: Conceitos e Conteúdos," Notas Económicas, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, issue 40, pages 26-42, December.
    8. Plaxcedes Chiwire & Charlotte Beaudart & Silvia M. Evers & Hassan Mahomed & Mickaël Hiligsmann, 2022. "Enhancing Public Participation in Public Health Offerings: Patient Preferences for Facilities in the Western Cape Province Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-26, January.
    9. Maguire, Kath & Britten, Nicky, 2017. "“How can anybody be representative for those kind of people?” Forms of patient representation in health research, and why it is always contestable," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 62-69.
    10. Greenfield, Geva & Pliskin, Joseph S. & Feder-Bubis, Paula & Wientroub, Shlomo & Davidovitch, Nadav, 2012. "Patient–physician relationships in second opinion encounters – The physicians’ perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(7), pages 1202-1212.
    11. Brad Wright, 2015. "Voices of the Vulnerable: Community health centres and the promise and peril of consumer governance," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 57-71, January.
    12. Martin, Graham P., 2008. "Representativeness, legitimacy and power in public involvement in health-service management," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 1757-1765, December.
    13. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Casebeer, Ann & Martin, Elisabeth & Mackean, Gail, 2007. "Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: Results from a Canadian comparative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(10), pages 2115-2128, May.
    14. Abelson, Julia & Giacomini, Mita & Lehoux, Pascale & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2007. "Bringing `the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 37-50, June.
    15. Lopes, Edilene & Carter, Drew & Street, Jackie, 2015. "Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 84-91.
    16. Ingrid Nyborg & Lars J Danbolt & Marit Kirkevold, 2017. "User participation is a family matter: A multiple case study of the experiences of older, hospitalised people and their relatives," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(23-24), pages 4353-4363, December.
    17. Yongjin Choi & Ashley M. Fox & Jennifer Dodge, 2022. "What counts? Policy evidence in public hearing testimonies: the case of single-payer healthcare in New York State," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(4), pages 631-660, December.
    18. Stacey, Clare Louise & Henderson, Stuart & MacArthur, Kelly R. & Dohan, Daniel, 2009. "Demanding patient or demanding encounter?: A case study of a cancer clinic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 729-737, September.
    19. Elizabeth Manias & Fiona Geddes & Bernadette Watson & Dorothy Jones & Phillip Della, 2016. "Perspectives of clinical handover processes: a multi‐site survey across different health professionals," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1-2), pages 80-91, January.
    20. Mendick, Nicola & Young, Bridget & Holcombe, Christopher & Salmon, Peter, 2010. "The ethics of responsibility and ownership in decision-making about treatment for breast cancer: Triangulation of consultation with patient and surgeon perspectives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1904-1911, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0150742. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.