Involving patients, caregivers, and citizens in health care and health policy has been recommended by international organizations for over a decade. This article focuses on developments in England under New Labour, places them in the context of broader health policy, and assesses them in the light of the limited empirical evidence. The authors consider a range of possible explanations for these developments. They suggest that we need to distinguish between individual and collective forms of patient involvement, and they chart patient and public involvement in England before New Labour and in three distinct phases under New Labour. There has been a significant extension of opportunities for individual patients and the public to communicate their views, albeit with twists and turns in the policy over time. The authors explain these developments in terms of New Labour's ideological attachment to pragmatism and the Third Way, political calculations about the need to reinvigorate political culture, and attempts to enhance cost-effectiveness. Patient and public involvement seems to be here to stay, but whether this will result in greater equity and a real shift in power away from professionals to citizens and patients is another matter.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
WHO Regional Office for Europe.A Declaration on the Promotion of Patients' Rights in Europe.World Health Organization, Copenhagen, 1994.
2.
Council of Europe.Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the Development of Structures for Citizen and Patient Participation in the Decision-Making Process Affecting Health Care.Strasbourg, 2000.
3.
CalnanM.JanozH., and JolantaS.Citizen participation and patient choice in health reform. In Critical Challenges for Health Care Reform in Europe, ed. SaltmanR. B.FiguerasJ., and SakellaridesC., pp. 325–338. Open University Press, Buckingham, 1998.
4.
LitvaA.“The public is too subjective”: Public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Soc. Sci. Med.54:1825–1837, 2002.
5.
BaggottR.A funny thing happened on the way to the forum? Reforming patient and public involvement in the NHS in England. Public Admin.83(3):533–551, 2005.
6.
TritterJ. Q., and McCallumA.The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy, 2008, in press.
7.
NolteE., and WaitS.Public involvement policies in practice: A comparison of 5 European countries. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy, 2008, in press.
8.
CharlesC., and DeMaioS.Lay participation in health care decision making: A conceptual framework. J. Health Polit. Policy Law18:881–904, 1993.
9.
SaltmanR. B.Patient choice and patient empowerment in northern European health care systems: A conceptual framework. Int. J. Health Serv.24:201–229, 1994.
10.
LomasJ.Reluctant rationers: Public input to health care priorities. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy2:103–111, 1997.
11.
CoulterA.The Autonomous Patient: Ending Paternalism in Medical Care.Nuffield Trust, London, 2002.
12.
HarrisonS.DowswellG., and MilewaT.Public and user “involvement” in the National Health Service. Health Soc. Care Community10(2):63–66, 2002.
13.
WaitS., and NolteE.Public involvement policies in health: Exploring their conceptual basis. Health Econ. Policy Law1:1–14, 2006.
14.
Department of Health.Patient and Public Involvement in the New NHS.London, 1999.
15.
BaggottR.AllsopJ., and JonesK.Speaking for Patients and Carers: Health Consumer Groups and the Policy Process.Palgrave, Houndsmill, UK, 2005.
16.
BaggottR.Health and Health Care in Britain, Ed. 3. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndsmill, UK, and New York, 2004.
17.
ColemanA. J., and GlendinningC.Local authority scrutiny of health: Making the views of the community count?Health Expectations7:29–39, 2004.
18.
PickardS.The future organisation of Community Health Councils. Soc. Policy Admin.32:226–244, 1997.
19.
GabeJ.Consumerism. In Key Concepts in Medical Sociology, ed. GabeJ.BuryM., and ElstonM. A., pp. 217–222. Sage, London, 2004.
20.
GabeJ.The British National Health Service: Continuity and change? In The Sociology of Health and Illness: Critical Perspectives, Ed. 7, ed. ConradP., pp. 522–536. Worth, New York, 2004.
21.
PickardS.Citizenship and consumerism in health care: A critique of citizens' juries. Soc. Policy Admin.29:135–149, 1998.
22.
CalnanM., and GabeJ.From consumerism to partnership? Britain's National Health Service at the turn of the century. Int. J. Health Serv.31:119–131, 2001.
23.
NHS Management Executive.Local Voices.Department of Health, London, 1992.
24.
HarrisonS., and MortM.Which champions, which people? Public and user involvement in health care as a technology of legitimacy. Soc. Policy Admin.32:60–70, 1998.
25.
Department of Health.Patient Partnership: Building a Collaborative Strategy.London, 1996.
26.
Department of Health.The New NHS: Modern, Dependable.Stationery Office, London, 1997.
27.
PickardS., and SmithK.A “Third Way” for lay involvement: What evidence so far?Health Expectations4(3):170–179, 2001.
28.
Department of Health.The NHS Plan: A Plan for Investment, A Plan for Reform.Stationery Office, London, 2000.
29.
CrinsonI.Putting patients first: The continuity of the consumerist discourse in health policy, from the Radical Right to New Labour. Crit. Soc. Policy18:227–234, 1998.
30.
Department of Health.Your Guide to the NHS.London, 2001.
31.
IliffeS., and MunroJ.New Labour and Britain's National Health Service: An overview on current reforms. Int. J. Health Serv.30:309–334, 2000.
32.
LewisS., and GillamS.The National Health Service Plan: Further reform of British health care. Int. J. Health Serv.31:111–118, 2001.
33.
GreenerI.The three moments of New Labour's health policy discourse. Policy Polit.32:303–316, 2004.
34.
Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry.The Inquiry into the Management of Care of Children Receiving Complex Heart Surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary.Stationery Office, London, 2001.
35.
CharlesC.GafniA., and WhelanT.Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (Or it takes at least two to tango). Soc. Sci. Med.44:681–692, 1997.
36.
WeissM., and BrittenN.What is concordance?Pharmaceut. J.271:493, 2003.
37.
MalinN.WilmotS., and ManthorpeJ.J.Key Concepts and Debates in Health and Social Policy.Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK, 2002.
38.
MilewaT.Local participatory democracy in Britain's health service: Innovation or fragmentation of a universal citizenship?Soc. Policy Admin.38:240–252, 2004.
39.
MeyerJ.Learning the Lessons from PALS: A Report on the Findings of a Qualitative Study to Evaluate the Introduction of Patient Advice and Liaison Services in London.School of Nursing and Midwifery, Department of Adult Nursing (Care for Older People), City University, London, 2005. www.city.ac.uk/sonm/research.
40.
Department of Health.The Expert Patient: A New Approach to Chronic Disease Management in the 21st Century.London, 2001.
41.
BuryM.The HSJ debate: Self-management of chronic disease doesn't work. Health Serv. J.115:18–19, 2005.
42.
KendallL.The Future Patient.Institute for Public Policy Research, London, 2001.
43.
Department of Health.Health and Social Care Act.Stationery Office, London, 2001.
44.
Commission for Health Improvement.Involvement to Improvement.London, 2004.
45.
HamerL.Local Government Scrutiny of Health: Using the New Power to Tackle Health Inequalities.Health Development Agency, London, 2003.
46.
QuennellP.Getting their say, or getting their way? Has participation strengthened the patient “voice” in the National Institute of Clinical Excellence?J. Manage. Med.15(3):202–219, 2001.
47.
DaviesD.Opening the Box: Evaluating the Citizens Council of NICE.Open University, Milton Keynes, 2005.
48.
HoggC.National Service Frameworks: Involving Patients and the Public.Patients Forum, London, 2002.
49.
Department of Health.Building on the Best: Choice, Responsiveness and Equity in the NHS.London, 2003.
50.
Department of Health.The NHS Improvement Plan: Putting People at the Heart of the Public Services.Stationery Office, London, 2004.
51.
AllsopJ., and BaggottR.The NHS in England: From modernisation to marketisation?Soc. Policy Rev.16:29–44, 2004.
52.
Farrington-DouglasJ., and AllenJ.Equitable Choices for Health.Institute for Public Policy Research, London, 2005.
53.
Department of Health.Choosing Health: Making Healthy Choices Easier.Public Health White Paper. Stationery Office, London, 2004.
54.
Department of Health.Self Care—A Real Choice.London, 2005.
55.
The end of the world's most ambitious user-led experiment in healthcare restructuring?Patient View9:6–20, 2004.
56.
Opinion Leader Research.Consultation on the Future Support for Patient and Public Involvement in Health.London, 2005.
57.
Department of Health.Government Response to the Consultation Exercise about the Future Support Arrangements for Patient and Public Involvement in Health.London, 2005.
58.
Department of Health.Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: A New Direction for Community Services.London, 2006.
59.
Department of Health.Creating a Patient-Led NHS: Delivering the NHS Improvement Plan.London, 2005.
60.
CrinsonI.The direction of health policy in New Labour's third term. Crit. Soc. Policy25:507–516, 2005.
61.
NewmanJ.Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society.Sage, London, 2001.
62.
PowellM.New Labour and the third way in the British welfare state: A new and distinctive approach?Crit. Soc. Policy20:39–60, 2000.
