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
. 2025 Mar 7;25(1):352.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-025-12423-3.

Integrating patient and public involvement into co-design of healthcare improvement: a case study in maternity care

Bothaina Attal  1 , Joann Leeding  2 , Jan W van der Scheer  1 , Zenab Barry  3 , Emma Crookes  4 , Sandra Igwe  5 , Nicky Lyons  6 , Susanna Stanford  7 , Mary Dixon-Woods  1 , Lisa Hinton  8
Affiliations

Integrating patient and public involvement into co-design of healthcare improvement: a case study in maternity care

Bothaina Attal et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Despite recognition of the importance of patient and public involvement (PPI) in healthcare improvement, compelling examples of "what good looks like" for PPI in co-design of improvement efforts, how it might be done, and formalisation of methods and reporting are lacking. In this article, we sought to address these gaps through a case study to illustrate a principled approach to integrating PPI into the co-design of healthcare improvement.

Methods: The case study aimed to involve maternity service users in the co-design of clinical resources for a maternity improvement programme, using a four-stage approach: 1) establishing guiding principles for PPI in the programme, 2) structuring PPI for the programme, 3) co-designing improvements with PPI, and 4) seeking feedback on PPI in the co-design process.

Results: Partnership-focused frameworks and other literature on PPI and co-design informed the guiding principles. The structure included a five-member PPI group who provided continuous input, and an additional 15-member PPI group who met twice to discuss experiences of obstetric emergency. PPI in the co-design processes shaped the development of the resources in multiple ways, such as strengthening the prominence given to listening to those in labour and their birth partners, ensuring inclusivity of visuals and language, and developing communication principles informing all resources. Feedback suggested that PPI members felt valued, listened to, and supported to provide unanticipated contributions.

Conclusions: The case study demonstrated how a principled approach to PPI enabled service users to play a key role in co-design of clinical resources aimed at improving the quality and safety of maternity care in the UK. Further case studies, across different clinical areas and with varying levels of resources, are needed to validate this approach.

Keywords: Healthcare quality improvement; Obstetrics and gynaecology; Patient safety; Quality improvement methodologies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: The consultations with the obstetric emergency PPI group (see Table 2) received ethics approval from The University of Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee (PRE.2022.021), with all participants providing written informed consent. The UK’s Health Research Authority decision tool (http://www.hra-decisiontools.org.uk/research/) showed that ethics approval was not required for the involvement of the ABC PPI group members. Their involvement was conducted in line with best PPI practice, with all members invited to join as authors of this paper. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

References

    1. Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expect. 2019;22(4):785–801. 10.1111/hex.12888. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ostrom E, Parks RB, Whitaker GP. The public service production process: a framework for analyzing police services. Policy Stud J. 1978;7(s1):381–481. 10.1111/j.1541-0072.1978.tb01782.x.
    1. Wicks P, Richards T, Denegri S, et al. Patients’ roles and rights in research. BMJ. 2018;362:k3193. 10.1136/bmj.k3193. - PubMed
    1. Mockford C, Staniszewska S, Griffiths F, et al. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2011;24(1):28–38. 10.1093/intqhc/mzr066. - PubMed
    1. Baines RL, Regan De Bere S. Optimizing patient and public involvement (PPI): Identifying its “essential” and “desirable” principles using a systematic review and modified Delphi methodology. Health Expect. 2018;21(1):327–35. 10.1111/hex.12618. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources