Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2022 Jan 27;17(1):e0261808.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261808. eCollection 2022.

Consumer engagement in health care policy, research and services: A systematic review and meta-analysis of methods and effects

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Consumer engagement in health care policy, research and services: A systematic review and meta-analysis of methods and effects

Louise K Wiles et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

To assess the effects of consumer engagement in health care policy, research and services. We updated a review published in 2006 and 2009 and revised the previous search strategies for key databases (The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Web of Science) up to February 2020. Selection criteria included randomised controlled trials assessing consumer engagement in developing health care policy, research, or health services. The International Association for Public Participation, Spectrum of Public Participation was used to identify, describe, compare and analyse consumer engagement. Outcome measures were effects on people; effects on the policy/research/health care services; or process outcomes. We included 23 randomised controlled trials with a moderate or high risk of bias, involving 136,265 participants. Most consumer engagement strategies adopted a consultative approach during the development phase of interventions, targeted to health services. Based on four large cluster-randomised controlled trials, there is evidence that consumer engagement in the development and delivery of health services to enhance the care of pregnant women results in a reduction in neonatal, but not maternal, mortality. From other trials, there is evidence that involving consumers in developing patient information material results in material that is more relevant, readable and understandable for patients, and can improve knowledge. Mixed effects are reported of consumer-engagement on the development and/or implementation of health professional training. There is some evidence that using consumer interviewers instead of staff in satisfaction surveys can have a small influence on the results. There is some evidence that consumers may have a role in identifying a broader range of health care priorities that are complementary to those from professionals. There is some evidence that consumer engagement in monitoring and evaluating health services may impact perceptions of patient safety or quality of life. There is growing evidence from randomised controlled trials of the effects of consumer engagement on the relevance and positive outcomes of health policy, research and services. Health care consumers, providers, researchers and funders should continue to employ evidence-informed consumer engagement in their jurisdictions, with embedded evaluation. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42018102595.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Modified PRISMA flowchart outlining the search results [41].
Fig 2
Fig 2. Risk of bias of included studies.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Meta-analysis of consumer engagement interventions for the outcome of neonatal mortality.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Meta-analysis of consumer engagement interventions for the outcome of maternal deaths.
Fig 5
Fig 5. Meta-analysis of consumer engagement interventions for the outcome of satisfaction.

References

    1. Miller FA, Patton SJ, Dobrow M, Berta W. Public involvement in health research systems: a governance framework. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018; 16(1): 79. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0352-7 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, et al.. Development of the ACTIVE framework to describe stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2019; 24(4): 245–55. doi: 10.1177/1355819619841647 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Degeling C, Carter SM, Rychetnik L. Which public and why deliberate? A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research. Soc Sci Med. 2015; 131: 114–21. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.03.009 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy. 2002; 61(2): 213–36. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(01)00214-7 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Whitstock MT. Seeking evidence from medical research consumers as part of the medical research process could improve the uptake of research evidence. J Eval Clin Pract. 2003; 9(2): 213–24. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00376.x - DOI - PubMed

Publication types