Emma Tumilty

Public involvement in health priority setting: future challenges for policy, research and society

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the findings of this special issue and discusses the future challenges for policy, research and society. The findings suggest that challenges emerge as a result of legitimacy deficits of both consensus and contestatory modes of public involvement in health priority setting. Design/methodology/approach - The paper draws on the discussions and findings presented in this special issue. It seeks to bring the country experiences and case studies together to draw conclusions for policy, research and society. Findings - At least two recurring themes emerge. An underlying theme is the importance, but also the challenge, of establishing legitimacy in health priority setting. The country experiences suggest that we understand very little about the conditions under which representative, or authentic, participation generates legitimacy and under which it will be regarded as insufficient. A second observation is that public participation takes a variety of forms that depend on the opportunity structures in a given national context. Given this variety the conceptualization of public participation needs to be expanded to account for the many forms of public participation. Originality/value - The paper concludes that the challenges of public involvement are closely linked to the question of how legitimate processes and decisions can be generated in priority setting. This suggests that future research must focus more narrowly on conditions under which legitimacy are generated in order to expand the understanding of public involvement in health prioritization.

Patterns of public participation: Opportunity structures and mobilization from a cross-national perspective

Purpose - The paper summarizes data from 12 countries, chosen to exhibit wide variation, on the role and place of public participation in the setting of priorities. The purpose of this paper is to exhibit cross-national patterns in respect of public participation, linking those differences to institutional features of the countries concerned. Design/methodology/approach - The approach is an example of case-orientated qualitative assessment of participation practices. It derives its data from the presentation of country case studies by experts on each system. The country cases are located within the historical development of democracy in each country. Findings - Patterns of participation are widely variable. Participation that is effective through routinized institutional processes appears to be inversely related to contestatory participation that uses political mobilization to challenge the legitimacy of the priority setting process. No system has resolved the conceptual ambiguities that are implicit in the idea of public participation. Originality/value - The paper draws on a unique collection of country case studies in participatory practice in prioritization, supplementing existing published sources. In showing that contestatory participation plays an important role in a sub-set of these countries it makes an important contribution to the field because it broadens the debate about public participation in priority setting beyond the use of minipublics and the observation of public representatives on decision-making bodies.

Multimorbidity, clinical decision making and health care delivery in New Zealand Primary care: a qualitative study

BackgroundMultimorbidity is a major issue for primary care. We aimed to explore primary care professionals’ accounts of managing multimorbidity and its impact on clinical decision making and regional health care delivery.MethodsQualitative interviews with 12 General Practitioners and 4 Primary Care Nurses in New Zealand’s Otago region. Thematic analysis was conducted using the constant comparative method.ResultsPrimary care professionals encountered challenges in providing care to patients with multimorbidity with respect to both clinical decision making and health care delivery. Clinical decision making occurred in time-limited consultations where the challenges of complexity and inadequacy of single disease guidelines were managed through the use of “satisficing” (care deemed satisfactory and sufficient for a given patient) and sequential consultations utilising relational continuity of care. The New Zealand primary care co-payment funding model was seen as a barrier to the delivery of care as it discourages sequential consultations, a problem only partially addressed through the use of the additional capitation based funding stream of Care Plus. Fragmentation of care also occurred within general practice and across the primary/secondary care interface.ConclusionsThese findings highlight specific New Zealand barriers to the delivery of primary care to patients living with multimorbidity. There is a need to develop, implement and nationally evaluate a revised version of Care Plus that takes account of these barriers.

Supporting New Zealand graduate midwives to stay in the profession: An evaluation of the Midwifery First Year of Practice programme

BACKGROUND the transition from undergraduate midwifery student to working as a confident midwife can be challenging for many newly qualified midwives. Supporting a smooth transition may have a positive impact on the confidence and retention of the new graduates within the workforce. In New Zealand the Midwifery First Year of Practice programme (MFYP) was introduced in 2007 as a structured programme of support for new graduate midwives for the whole of their first year of practice. The main components of the programme include support during clinical practice, provision of a funded mentor midwife chosen by the new graduate midwife, financial assistance for education and a requirement to undertake a quality assessment and reflection process at the end of the first year. AIM the aim of this study was to explore the retention of new graduates in midwifery practice following participation in the Midwifery First Year of Practice programme. METHOD data was obtained from the register of MFYP participants between the years 2007 and 2010. This data was cross referenced with the Midwifery Council of New Zealand register and workforce data for 2012. FINDINGS between the years 2007 and 2010 there were 441 midwives who graduated from a midwifery pre-registration education programme in New Zealand. Of these 415 participated in the MFYP programme. The majority were of New Zealand European ethnicity with 10% identifying as Māori. The mean age of participants reduced from 36.4 (SD 7.3) in 2007 to 33.4 (SD 8.1) in 2010. The overall retention rate for new graduate midwives who had participated in the MFYP programme was 86.3%, with 358 midwives still practising in 2012. CONCLUSION there is good retention of new graduate midwives within New Zealand and the MFYP programme would appear to support retention.

Making ethics review a learning institution: The Ethics Application Repository proof of concept – tear.otago.ac.nz

The Ethics Application Repository is an open access, online repository of exemplary Institutional Review Board (ethics committee) application forms donated by scholars who want to gift some of their expertise and wisdom to novice researchers in the spirit of a public good. This article describes the background for the genesis of the project, the building of The Ethics Application Repository as a proof of concept and the initial supportive and critical feedback from graduate students, graduate advisors and Institutional Review Board members. The article also serves as a call for donations from qualitative researchers to enlarge and develop stage 2 of the project, the development of special collections featuring children, information research, innovative methodologies and community-based participatory research.

Tainting by numbers – how the disadvantaged become invisible within evidence-based medicine

Abstract ‘Evidence-based’ is the key criterion for decision making not only in medicine and other health professions, where it originated and revolutionized what was previously subjective, opinion-based practice, but also across policy and service development. The ‘evidence-based’ epistemology uses the hierarchy of evidence – a qualitative ranking of information for consideration, as to its cogency – based on a biomedical view of human health. Evidence-based medicine originally proposed that it would contribute to justice by providing the means to make objective, and therefore, fair and equitable decisions, as well as helping to stop the use of ineffective treatments, thus minimizing costs. In this paper, we argue, however, that due to the epistemological ranking of evidence and its implications, only one type of question can ever be answered using this framework and that some groups are unjustly disregarded or excluded because of the limitations inherent in its epistemology; therefore, evidence-based decision making, whether in medicine, other health professions, or policy settings, using the hierarchy of evidence, in fact, can contribute to injustice. This injustice occurs through preferenced evidence generation set against a highly pressurized and competitive research environment, where funding is restricted and the mantra ‘publish or perish’ creates separate drivers and considerations for research design other than the research problem. We provide evidence of the lack of evidence generation for three specific minority groups and suggest that the epistemological foundations of an evidence-based strategy be revised to include measures of quality that reflect a connectedness not only between the researchers and the affected stakeholders (patient population, service providers, etc.) but also between the methodology/analysis and the problem trying to be solved.

Non-human Animals as Research Participants: Ethical Practice in Animal Assisted Interventions and Research in Aotearoa/New Zealand

In this chapter we outline the need to develop ethical frameworks to guide research on the role of animal-orientated health, therapeutic, and service interventions. We discuss findings from our research on uses of animals in therapeutic settings and benefits of human–canine interactions for human health. These stories from the field reveal that current ethics review processes do not recognise the animal as an equal partner in the potential reciprocal benefits and risks of therapeutic human–animal relationships. We explore how these review processes frame research on the relationships between humans and non-human animals and use the ethical review system of Aotearoa/New Zealand as an example. We propose an ethical framework that goes beyond animal welfare legislation and recognises a range of non-human animal capacities.