LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Baxter, S.; Clowes, M.; Muir, D.; Baird, W.; Broadway-Parkinson, A.; Bennett, C. (2016)
Publisher: Wiley Open Access
Journal: Health Expectations : An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Review Articles, lay members, Review Article, public representatives, public involvement, systematic review, public participation
Abstract Background Members of the public are increasingly being invited to become members of a variety of different panels and boards. Objective This study aimed to systematically search the literature to identify studies relating to support or training provided to members of the public who are asked to be members of an interview panel. Search strategy A systematic search for published and unpublished studies was carried out from June to September 2015. The search methods included electronic database searching, reference list screening, citation searching and scrutinizing online sources. Inclusion criteria We included studies of any design including published and unpublished documents which outlined preparation or guidance relating to public participants who were members of interview panels or representatives on other types of panels or committees. Data synthesis Results were synthesised via narrative methods. Main results Thirty‐six documents were included in the review. Scrutiny of this literature highlighted ten areas which require consideration when including members of the public on interview panels: financial resources; clarity of role; role in the interview process; role in evaluation; training; orientation/induction; information needs; terminology; support; and other public representative needs such as timing, accessibility and support with information technology. Discussion and conclusions The results of the review emphasize a range of elements that need to be fully considered when planning the involvement of public participants on interview panels. It highlights potential issues relating to the degree of involvement of public representatives in evaluating/grading decisions and the need for preparation and on‐going support.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1 Mosconi P, Satolli R, Colombo C, Villani W. Does a consumer training work? A follow‐up survey of the PartecipaSalute training programs. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10:6.22339981
    • 2 Pickard S. A ‘third way’ for lay involvement: what evidence so far?Health Expect. 2001;4:170–179.11493323
    • 3 Florin D. Public involvement in health care. BMJ. 2004;328:159.14726350
    • 4 INVOLVE . Strategy 2012–2015. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2012 http://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/INVOLVEStrategy2012-15.pdf. Accessed September 29, 2015.
    • 5 Roberts P, Wild K, Washington K, Mountford C, Capewell J. Inclusion of lay people in the pre‐registration selection process. Nurs Stand. 2010;24:42–47.
    • 6 Centre for Evidence‐Based Medicine . 2015 Critical appraisal of surveys. http://www.cebma.org/wp-content/uploads/Critical-Appraisal-Questions-for-a-Survey.pdf. Accessed August 31, 2015.
    • 7 Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) . Cohort Study Checklist. Oxford: CASP; 2014.
    • 8 Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) . Qualitative Study Checklist. Oxford: CASP; 2014.
    • 9 Browne G, Lakeman R, O'Brien AP, Chan S. Service users on interview panels in mental health. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2015;24:281–282.26018126
    • 10 Burke S, Davison I, Brown C, Bullock A, Kelly S. The involvement of lay people in selection to general practice training schemes. Educ Prim Care. 2005;16:450–458.
    • 11 Department of Health . The National Health Service (appointment of consultants) Regulations Good Practice Guidance. London: Department of Health; 2004.
    • 12 Hurtado B, Timmins S, Seward C. The importance of being earnest: our experience of involving service users with complex needs in staff recruitment. Br J Learn Disabil. 2014;42:36–42.
    • 13 Matka E, River D, Littlechild R, Powell T. Involving service users and carers in admissions for courses in social work and clinical psychology: cross‐disciplinary comparison of practices at the University of Birmingham. Br J Soc Work. 2010;40:b2137–b2154.
    • 14 Richardson T, Hughes R, Morley J, Duggan S. Involving service users and carers in ODP interviews. J Operating Dept Pract. 2013;1:75–79.
    • 15 University of Keele . Lay interviewers of prospective medical students. http://www.keele.ac.uk/medicine/publicandpatientinvolvement/laypublicinvolvement/layinterviewers. Accessed September 29, 2015.
    • 16 Anghel R, Ramon S. Service users and carers’ involvement in social work education: lessons from an English case study. Eur J Soc Work. 2009;12:185–199.
    • 17 Healthcare Quality Initiative Partnership . A Guide to Developing a Patient Panel for Clinical Audit. HQIP Ltd: London, 2013.
    • 18 Jones B, Royse D. Citizen review panels: the connection between training and perceived effectiveness. Child Abuse Negl. 2008;32:918–919.18990447
    • 19 Monahan A, Stewart DE. The role of lay panellists on grant review panels. Chronic Dis Can. 2003;24:70–74.12959677
    • 20 NHS Wales . Complaints in the NHS: training for lay members of independent reviews and panels. 2003 https://www.wales.nhs.uk/documents/43842_TRAINING_PAGES.pdf. Accessed September 29, 2015.
    • 21 O'Connor E, Fortune T, Doran J, Boland R. Involving consumers in accreditation: the Irish experience. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:296–300.17652098
    • 22 Oliver S. Involving consumers in a needs led research programme: a pilot project. Health Expect. 2001;4:18–28.11286596
    • 23 Buckland S, Simons L, Wren G. Survey of Lay Members of Research Ethics Committee. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2009.
    • 24 Department of Health . Guidelines for Maternity Services Liaison Committees. London: Department of Health; 2006.
    • 25 Fletcher G, Buggins E. The Voices Project: Training and Support for Maternity Services User Represent atives. London: National Childbirth Trust; 1997.
    • 26 Gilbert D. Working with Lay Members and Patient Representatives. (Smart Guides to Engagement). London: NHS Networks; 2012.
    • 27 NHS West Sussex . Policy for the recruitment of lay members to groups or committees. http://www.westsussex.nhs.uk/domains/westsussex.nhs.uk/local/media//publications/policies-and-procedures/Communications-and engagement/Policy_for_the_recruitment_of_lay_members_to_NHS_West_Sussex_groups_or_committees.pdf. Accessed September 29, 2015.
    • 28 O'Hara P, Schmaltz R, Arts K, et al. Results of a Survey on the Roles of Lay Representatives on Health Research Committees. Toronto: Canadian Cancer Action Network; 2015.
    • 29 Ukpong M. Training of lay members of ethics committees on how to review protocols. Tropical Med Int Health. 2012;17:67.
    • 30 Dougherty GW Jr, Easton J. Appointed public volunteer boards: exploring the basics of citizen participation through boards and commissions. Am Rev Public Adm. 2011;41:519–541.
    • 31 Frankish CJ. Challenges of citizen participation in regional health authorities. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:1471–1480.12061482
    • 32 Greco M. Evaluation of a clinical governance training programme for non‐executive directors of NHS organisations. Qual Prim Care. 2004;12:119–127.
    • 33 Health and Care Professions Council . Members (lay and registrant) health and care professions council information pack for candidates. HCP Council: London, 2013.
    • 34 Jenkinson BSJ, Boorman R, Creedy D. Effect of a maternity consumer representative training programme on participants’ confidence. Aust Health Rev. 2014;38:306–311.24807476
    • 35 Jennings M, Smith JA. Facilitating the role of lay members in ethics and animal care and use committees. RSPCA: Horsham, 2015.
    • 36 Klitzman R. Institutional review board community members: who are they, what do they do, and who m do they represent?Acad Med. 2012;87:975–981.22622206
    • 37 NHS England . Best Practice Resource/Practical Toolkit—for the Appointment of Lay Members to Clinical Commissioning Groups. London: NHS England; 2015 http://www.england.nhs.uk/tk-appoint-lay-mem-ccg. Accessed September 29, 2015.
    • 38 Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children Board . Lay Members Induction Booklet. Oxfordshire County Council: Oxford, 2010.
    • 39 Wandsworth Clinical Commissioning Group . Roles and Responsibilities for Lay Members/User Representatives on Committees or Project Boards. Wandsworth: NHS Wandsworth CCG; 2013.
    • 40 Lockey R, Sitzia J, Gillingham T, et al. Training for Service User Involvement in Health and Social Care Research: A Study of Training Provision and Participants’ Experiences (The TRUE Project). Worthing: Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust; 2004.
    • 41 Parkes JH, Pyer M, Wray P, Taylor J. Partners in projects: preparing for public involvement in health and social care research. Health Policy. 2014;117:399–408.24907228
    • 42 Buck D, Gamble C, Dudley L, et al., The EPIC Patient Advisory Group . From plans to actions in patient and public involvement: qualitative study of documented plans and the accounts of researchers and patients sampled from a cohort of clinical trials. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e006400.
    • 43 Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy. 2002;61:213–236.12088893
    • .lttrakeeu 01)(0205 trygeuho&30()tsanoE1012 ssyeenooR&81)(2080 .l(ttaaake2010 aanhno&1()ttraeS0203w l.itscaenoo 1)(2012 '.ltraaaeH82)(2051 .ltrsaakee 14)(2014 2i()rcakd0021 .litrscaaenhdo 41)(2031 l.ttrsaeebo 5)(2010 .lltcaakeund 23)(2090
    • B D J M M M O P P R R B 1. Mosconi P, Satolli R, Colombo C, Villani W. Does a consumer training
    • Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10:6. 2. Pickard S. A 'third way' for lay involvement: what evidence so far?
    • Health Expect. 2001;4:170-179. 3. Florin D. Public involvement in health care. BMJ. 2004;328:159. 4. INVOLVE. Strategy 2012-2015. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2012. htp://
    • www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/INVOLVEStrat-
    • egy2012-15.pdf. Accessed September 29, 2015. 5. Roberts P, Wild K, Washington K, Mounotfrd C, Capewell J. Inclusion
    • 2010;24:42-47. 6. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. 2015. Critical appraisal of sur -
    • Questions-for-a-Survey.pdf. Accessed August 31, 2015. 7. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Cohort Study Checklist.
    • Oxford: CASP; 2014. 8. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Qualitative Study Checklist.
    • Oxford: CASP; 2014. 9. Browne G, Lakeman R, O'Brien AP, Chan S. Service users on interview
    • panels in mental health. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2015;24:281-282. 10. Burke S, Davison I, Brown C, Bullock A, Kelly S. The involvement of
    • Care. 2005;16:450-458. 11. Department of Health. The National Health Service (appointment of
    • of Health; 2004. 12. Hurtado B, Timmins S, Seward C. The importance of being earnest:
    • recruitment. Br J Learn Disabil. 2014;42:36-42. 13. Matka E, River D, Litlechild R, Powell T. Involving service users and
    • Birmingham. Br J Soc Work. 2010;40:b2137-b2154. 14. Richardson T, Hughes R, Morley J, Duggan S. Involving service users
    • and carers in ODP interviews. J Operating Dept Pract. 2013;1:75-
    • 79. 15. University of Keele. Lay interviewers of prospective medical students.
    • laypublicinvolvement/layinterviewers. Accessed September 29, 2015. 16. Anghel R, Ramon S. Service users and carers' involvement in social
    • 2009;12:185-199. 17. Healthcare Quality Initiative Partnership. A Guide to Developing a
    • Patient Panel for Clinical Audit. HQIP Ltd: London, 2013. 18. Jones B, Royse D. Ciztien review panels: the connecotin between
    • training and perceived eefcvtieness. Child Abuse Negl. 2008;32:918-
    • 919. 19. Monahan A, Stewart DE. The role of lay panellists on grant review
    • panels. Chronic Dis Can. 2003;24:70-74. 20. NHS Wales. Complaints in the NHS: training for lay members of inde-
    • pendent reviews and panels. 2003. hpts://www.wales.nhs.uk/docu-
    • ments/43842_TRAINING_PAGES.pdf. Accessed September 29, 2015. 21. O'Connor E, Fortune T, Doran J, Boland R. Involving consum-
    • 2007;19:296-300. 22. Oliver S. Involving consumers in a needs led research programme: a
    • pilot project. Health Expect. 2001;4:18-28. 23. Buckland S, Simons L, Wren G. Survey of Lay Members of Research Eth-
    • ics Commiete. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2009. 24. Department of Health. Guidelines for Maternity Services Liaison Com-
    • mietes. London: Department of Health; 2006. 25. Fletcher G, Buggins E. The Voices Project: Training and Support for
    • Trust; 1997. 26. Gilbert D. Working with Lay Members and Patient Representatives.
    • (Smart Guides to Engagement). London: NHS Networks; 2012. 27. NHS West Sussex. Policy for the recruitment of lay members to groups
    • 29, 2015. 28. O'Hara P, Schmaltz R, Arts K, et al. Results of a Survey on the Roles of
    • Cancer Action Network; 2015. 29. Ukpong M. Training of lay members of ethics commietes on how to
    • review protocols. Tropical Med Int Health. 2012;17:67. 30. Dougherty GW Jr, Easton J. Appointed public volunteer boards:
    • missions. Am Rev Public Adm. 2011;41:519-541. 31. Frankish CJ. Challenges of citizen participation in regional health
    • authorities. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:1471-1480. 32. Greco M. Evaluation of a clinical governance training programme
    • 2004;12:119-127. 33. Health and Care Professions Council. Members (lay and registrant)
    • HCP Council: London, 2013. 34. Jenkinson BSJ, Boorman R, Creedy D. Eefct of a maternity consumer
    • Health Rev. 2014;38:306-311. 35. Jennings M, Smith JA. Facilitating the role of lay members in ethics
    • and animal care and use commietes. RSPCA: Horsham, 2015. 36. Klitzman R. Institutional review board community members: who
    • 2012;87:975-981. 37. NHS England. Best Practice Resource/Practical Toolkit-for the Appoint -
    • England; 2015. htp://www.england.nhs.uk/tk-appoint-lay-mem-ccg.
    • Accessed September 29, 2015. 38. Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children Board. Lay Members Induction
    • Booklet. Oxfordshire County Council: Oxford, 2010. 39. Wandsworth Clinical Commissioning Group. Roles and Responsibilities
    • Wandsworth: NHS Wandsworth CCG; 2013. 40. Lockey R, Sitzia J, Gillingham T, et al. Training for Service User Involve-
    • and Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust; 2004. 41. Parkes JH, Pyer M, Wray P, Taylor J. Partners in projects: preparing for
    • 2014;117:399-408. 42. Buck D, Gamble C, Dudley L, et al., The EPIC Patient Advisory Group.
    • 2014;4:e006400. 43. Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health
    • research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy. 2002;61:213-
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.