Editorial
Public and patient participation in health policy, care and research
Cl??udia de Freitasa,b,
a ISPUP-EPIUnit, Universidade do Porto, Portugal
b Centre for Research and Studies in Sociology, University Institute of Lisbon, Portugal

Public and patient participation in health has evolved considerably since the World Health Organization's Alma Ata Declaration asserted people's “right and duty to participate individually and collectively in the planning and implementation of their health care” in 1978.1 The expansion of neoliberal policies in the 1980s, and mounting disillusionment with the “democratic deficit” observed in the 1990s, prompted social movements across the world to demand greater public accountability and the inclusion of lay citizens in decision-making processes.2 At the same time, governments in several countries began to look for strategies that could bring them closer to the people. One of the methods used to promote dialogue between the state and ordinary people was the creation of institutional participatory spaces in which lay citizens could come together with policy-makers, managers, professionals, and other members of the public, to discuss policy and service provision.3 This move towards participatory governance was also extended to the health sector. The idea that participation “makes for better citizens, better decisions and better government”,4 together with increasing evidence that participation can improve the quality of health research, health care and public health interventions,5–7 fostered investment in public and patient participation in health across a variety of countries throughout the 2000s.

At present, participation is both a means to facilitate an interface for state-citizen dialogue and a goal in its own right.8 Moreover, it is considered a fundamental element of patient-centred care, i.e. the process by which health professionals and patients establish fruitful partnerships to put people at the centre of the system by identifying and valuing patients’ needs, preferences and values, while supporting them in making informed decisions.9 Ultimately, public participation aims to produce transformative change. In other words, it aims to elicit alternative forms of knowledge and expertise that can help identify and implement strategies to address the root causes of health inequities.10

Public and patient participation can take multiple forms and enable different degrees of power sharing regarding decision-making processes. At one end of the continuum are one-off participatory spaces, such as listening exercises or health consultation events, in which citizens are asked to contribute their views without further commitment to follow-up action. At the other end of the continuum are more durable participatory spaces, including health councils and national health bodies, in which citizens can engage in shared leadership. Countries tend to navigate through this continuum as they achieve their goals or switch between priorities.11 In Brazil, for example, public and patient participation in health care policy is a right enshrined by the Constitution.12 In the Netherlands, health care services are entrusted the responsibility of creating participatory spaces to involve patients and their family members in care planning and evaluation. Canadian citizens participate at various levels across the health care system, including in health technology assessment.13 Several funding agencies in the UK demand researchers to state how they plan to involve lay citizens in research projects.14 And online platforms such as Patient-innovation.com facilitate dialogue between patients and caregivers and enable the sharing of solutions, treatments and devices, which often result from patients own capacity for innovation.

Public and patient participation is also gaining pace in Portugal. Initiatives aimed at fostering the implementation of new participatory spaces15 that can enable lay citizens to have a voice in health decision-making have recently emerged. In 2016, the forum Mais participação, melhor saúde coordinated by GAT – Grupo de Ativistas em Tratamentos was held at the Portuguese Parliament. It gathered representatives of patient and civil society organisations, decision-makers, service managers, health professionals and researchers with the goal of increasing support and advocacy for developing a partnership between government and the citizenry to share responsibility over health care governance. Showcasing a critical mass of stakeholders, the forum set the tone for reinvigorating the goal proposed by the National Health Plan (2012–2016) to promote health citizenship, namely through citizen participation – an idea supported by the Minister of Health who has recently stated that “the individual should be considered an ally in transforming the system”.16 The recently launched National Mental Health Council and the Community Councils at Agrupamentos de Centros de Saúde (Health Centres Clusters) are two examples of consultative health participatory spaces through which this goal can be achieved.17,18

Researchers in Portugal, and elsewhere, are also increasingly resorting to innovative methods (e.g. creative visual methods, think tanks, social fora) to involve people who would otherwise be inappropriately excluded from research due to speech or cognitive disabilities, the inability to disclose personal identities to the public (e.g. gamete donors), physical distance, or any other constraints that impede them from participating through conventional methodologies.19,20 These innovative methods carry potential to increase the inclusiveness of research, as well as of other participatory initiatives.

Taking part in health participatory spaces for consultation and shared decision-making will require a new dynamics of collaboration and co-production between the various stakeholders. Moreover, it will require the dissemination of knowledge about and the acquisition of skills for participation. Lay citizens, decision-makers, service managers, health professionals, students and researchers should all be entitled to receiving training adapted to the specificities of the health participatory spaces and initiatives in which they are expected to participate. Future research, practice and policy should therefore focus on allocating human and financial resources to participatory initiatives, designing trainings and building stakeholder capacity for participation, and adaptating participation impact assessment tools to the Portuguese context. Despite the financial constraints levied on the National Health Care Service by the financial crisis,21 it is of utterly importance that public authorities and civil society organisations join efforts to address these needs in order to promote transformative participation in health.

References
1
World Health Organization
Health for all series, number 1. Alma-Ata 1978
Primary health care, WHO, (1978)
2
A. Fung,E.O. Wright
Deepening democracy. Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance
Verso, (2003)
3
J. Gaventa
Towards participatory governance: assessing the transformative possibilities
Participation: from tyranny to transformation? Exploring new approaches to participation in development,
4
A. Cornwall,V.S. Coelho
Spaces for change? The politics of citizen participation in new democratic arenas
Zed Books, (2007)
5
C. Mockford,S. Staniszewska,F. Griffiths,S. Herron-Marx
The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review
Int J Qual Heal Care, 24 (2012), pp. 28-38 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzr066
6
A. O’Mara-Eves,G. Brunton,D. McDaid,S. Oliver,J. Kavanagh,F. Jamal
Community engagement to reduce inequalities in health: a systematic review, meta-analysis and economic analysis
Public Heal Res, 1 (2013),
http://hdl.handle.net/10552/3349
7
J. Brett,S. Staniszewska,C. Mockford,S. Herron-Marx,J. Hughes,C. Tysall
Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review
Heal Expect, 17 (2014), pp. 637-650
8
W.H. Organization
Ninth futures forum on health systems governance and public participation
WHO Regional Office for Europe, (2006)
9
M. Pulvirenti,J. McMillan,S. Lawn
Empowerment, patient centred care and self-management
Heal Expect, 17 (2014), pp. 303-310
10
C. De Freitas,G. Martin
Inclusive public participation in health: Policy, practice and theoretical contributions to promote the involvement of marginalised groups in healthcare
11
C. Marston,R. Hinton,S. Kean,S. Baral,A. Ahuja,A. Costello
Community participation for transformative action on women's, children's and adolescents’ health
Bull World Health Organ, 94 (2016), pp. 376-382 http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.15.168492
12
C. De Freitas
Aiming for inclusion: a case study of motivations for involvement in mental health-care governance by ethnic minority users
Heal Expect, 18 (2015), pp. 1093-1104
13
J. Abelson,M. Giacomini,P. Lehoux,F. Gauvin
Bringing “the public” into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice
14
S. Auckland
BRC guidance: involving users in research
Guy's and Thoma's NHS Foundation Trust, (2010)
15
C. De Freitas
Equidade, diversidade e participação dos cidadãos em saúde
Saúde e cidadania: equidade nos cuidados de saúde materno-infantil em tempos de crise, pp. 141-152
16
S. Brickman
Panorama meets Dr Adalberto Campos Fernandes, medical doctor, public health specialist and, since November 2015, Minister of Health of Portugal
Public Heal Panor, 2 (2016), pp. 264-267
17
Portugal. Minist??rio da Sa??de, Regime Jur??dico dos Agrupamentos dos Centros de Sa??de. Decreto-Lei no 28/2008 de 22 de Fevereiro. https://www.ers.pt/uploads/document/file/92/05.pdf [accessed 21.12.16].
18
Portugal. Gabinete do Secret??rio de Estado Adjunto e da Sa??de. Despacho n.o 7306-B/2016 – Di??rio da Rep??blica n.o 106/2016, 1o Suplemento, S??rie II de 2 de Junho de 2016. http://www.sg.min-saude.pt/NR/rdonlyres/CE1B2B55-9244-46E7-8629-CBEF56793C9B/43945/0000200002.pdf [accessed 21.12.16].
19
E. Wilson,A. Kenny,V. Dickson-Swift
Using blogs as a qualitative health research tool: a scoping review
Int J Qual Methods, 14 (2015), pp. 1-12
20
V. Ferreira,C. De Freitas,P. Videira,D. Krasnewich,E. Morava,S. Silva
Needs and opportunities from congenital disorders of glycosylation (CDG): results from the first world think tanks
Mol Syndromol, 6 (2015), pp. 327
21
H. Legido-Quigley,M. Karanikolos,S. Hérnandez-Plaza,C. De Freitas,L. Bernardo,B. Padilla
Effects of the financial crisis and Troika austerity measures on health and health care access in Portugal
Health Policy, 120 (2016), pp. 833-839 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.04.009
Copyright © 2017. PBJ-Associação Porto Biomedical/Porto Biomedical Society

Open Access

Creative Commons License
Porto Biomedical Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

+ info