Patient participation in cancer network governance: a six-year case study.
Cancer
Collaborative governance
Governance functions
Multiple case study design
Networks
Patient participation
Qualitative data
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Sep 2021
07 Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
29
07
2020
accepted:
30
07
2021
entrez:
8
9
2021
pubmed:
9
9
2021
medline:
10
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patient participation in decision-making has become a hallmark of responsive healthcare systems. Cancer networks in many countries have committed to involving people living with and beyond cancer (PLC) at multiple levels. However, PLC participation in network governance remains highly variable for reasons that are poorly understood. This study aims to share lessons learned regarding mechanisms that enable PLC participation in cancer network governance. This multiple case study, using a qualitative approach in a natural setting, was conducted over six years in three local cancer networks within the larger national cancer network in Quebec (Canada), where PLC participation is prescribed by the Cancer Directorate. Data were collected from multiple sources, including individual and focus group interviews (n = 89) with policymakers, managers, clinicians and PLC involved in national and local cancer governance committees. These data were triangulated and iteratively analysed according to a framework based on functions of collaborative governance in the network context. We identify three main mechanisms that enable PLC participation in cancer network governance: (1) consistent emphasis on patient-centred care as a network objective; (2) flexibility, time and support to translate mandated PLC representation into meaningful participation; and (3) recognition of the distinct knowledge of PLC in decision-making. The shared vision of person-centred care facilitates PLC participation. The quality of participation improves through changes in how committee meetings are conducted, and through the establishment of a national committee where PLC can pool their experience, develop skills and establish a common voice on priority issues. PLC knowledge is especially valued around particular challenges such as designing integrated care trajectories and overcoming barriers to accessing care. These three mechanisms interact to enable PLC participation in governance and are activated to varying extents in each local network. This study reveals that mandating PLC representation on governance structures is a powerful context element enabling participation, but that it also delineates which governance functions are open to influence from PLC participation. While the activation of mechanisms is context dependent, the insights from this study in Quebec are transferable to cancer networks in other jurisdictions seeking to embed PLC participation in decision-making.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Patient participation in decision-making has become a hallmark of responsive healthcare systems. Cancer networks in many countries have committed to involving people living with and beyond cancer (PLC) at multiple levels. However, PLC participation in network governance remains highly variable for reasons that are poorly understood. This study aims to share lessons learned regarding mechanisms that enable PLC participation in cancer network governance.
METHODS
METHODS
This multiple case study, using a qualitative approach in a natural setting, was conducted over six years in three local cancer networks within the larger national cancer network in Quebec (Canada), where PLC participation is prescribed by the Cancer Directorate. Data were collected from multiple sources, including individual and focus group interviews (n = 89) with policymakers, managers, clinicians and PLC involved in national and local cancer governance committees. These data were triangulated and iteratively analysed according to a framework based on functions of collaborative governance in the network context.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We identify three main mechanisms that enable PLC participation in cancer network governance: (1) consistent emphasis on patient-centred care as a network objective; (2) flexibility, time and support to translate mandated PLC representation into meaningful participation; and (3) recognition of the distinct knowledge of PLC in decision-making. The shared vision of person-centred care facilitates PLC participation. The quality of participation improves through changes in how committee meetings are conducted, and through the establishment of a national committee where PLC can pool their experience, develop skills and establish a common voice on priority issues. PLC knowledge is especially valued around particular challenges such as designing integrated care trajectories and overcoming barriers to accessing care. These three mechanisms interact to enable PLC participation in governance and are activated to varying extents in each local network.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study reveals that mandating PLC representation on governance structures is a powerful context element enabling participation, but that it also delineates which governance functions are open to influence from PLC participation. While the activation of mechanisms is context dependent, the insights from this study in Quebec are transferable to cancer networks in other jurisdictions seeking to embed PLC participation in decision-making.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34493271
doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06834-1
pii: 10.1186/s12913-021-06834-1
pmc: PMC8423332
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
929Subventions
Organisme : Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
ID : 27193
Organisme : Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
ID : 265874
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Aug;29(8):1489-95
pubmed: 20679652
Health Policy. 2014 May;116(1):1-11
pubmed: 24485914
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018 Oct 02;8(1):49-50
pubmed: 30709102
Healthc Q. 2015;17 Spec No:28-32
pubmed: 25562131
Aust J Rural Health. 2011 Dec;19(6):324-8
pubmed: 22098217
Implement Sci. 2011 Mar 22;6:25
pubmed: 21426573
Healthc Q. 2015;17 Spec No:48-51
pubmed: 25562135
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Jun 24;13:229
pubmed: 23800334
Implement Sci. 2014 Feb 20;9:24
pubmed: 24555508
Soc Sci Med. 2012 Feb;74(3):340-347
pubmed: 21501913
Soc Sci Med. 2016 Feb;150:31-9
pubmed: 26730879
BMJ Open. 2018 Aug 5;8(8):e018896
pubmed: 30082339
Curr Hematol Malig Rep. 2016 Aug;11(4):303-10
pubmed: 27262855
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Dec;99(12):1923-1939
pubmed: 27450481
J Pediatr Psychol. 2016 Jun;41(5):493-505
pubmed: 27118271
J Support Oncol. 2012 May-Jun;10(3):107-11
pubmed: 22440532
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016 Jul 03;6(1):49-51
pubmed: 28005542
Healthc Q. 2018 Dec;21(SP):38-44
pubmed: 30566402
AJS. 2009 Nov;115(3):657-711
pubmed: 20503740
J Oncol Pract. 2016 Nov;12(11):1012-1019
pubmed: 27650834
Health Policy. 2017 Oct;121(10):1031-1039
pubmed: 28919056
BMJ Qual Saf. 2011 Apr;20 Suppl 1:i43-6
pubmed: 21450770
Patient Educ Couns. 2020 Jan;103(1):5-14
pubmed: 31447194
Implement Sci. 2016 Mar 21;11:39
pubmed: 27000152
Lancet Oncol. 2006 Apr;7(4):336-46
pubmed: 16574549
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Oct 25;19(1):752
pubmed: 31653231
Health Expect. 2016 Aug;19(4):790-804
pubmed: 26072929
Implement Sci. 2018 Jul 26;13(1):98
pubmed: 30045735