The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing the promise of user involvement in health service development: ethnographic study
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To understand how the policy of user involvement is interpreted in health service organisations and to identify factors that influence how user involvement is put into practice. DESIGN: Ethnographic study using participant observation, interviews, and collection of documentary evidence. SETTING: A multiagency modernisation programme to improve stroke services in two London boroughs. PARTICIPANTS: Service users, National Health Service managers, and clinicians. RESULTS: User involvement in the programme was initiated and led by professionals. Professionals determined the areas of service improvement service users could participate in. A wide range of activities were considered "user involvement," from patient satisfaction surveys to service users delivering peer support. Involvement tended to be most active in the least technical areas and areas with least input from clinicians. Factors that might explain this included organisational structure, the vagueness of the concept of user involvement, the value attributed to service users' experiential knowledge, and variations in professional and service user understandings of and commitment to involvement. The gains of involvement were harder to identify in terms of impact on services. More evident were the personal gains for those involved: satisfaction of feeling listened to by professionals, social opportunities of meeting others in a similar situation, and increased knowledge about stroke and services available. CONCLUSIONS: User involvement may not automatically lead to improved service quality. Healthcare professionals and service users understand and practise user involvement in different ways according to individual ideologies, circumstances, and needs. Given the resource implications of undertaking user involvement in service development there is a need for critical debate on the purpose of such involvement as well as better evidence of the benefits claimed for it.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Fudge et al [73] also found that learning from others in similar situations was one of patients’ motives to attend meetings in a user-involved program for improvement of health services for people with stroke.”
From Long-Term Engagement With a Mobile Self-Management System for People With Type 2 Diabetes (2013) · cites this paper as [73]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ethnography: Principles and Practice
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983) · Cited by 7,730
Ethnography: Principles in Practice
Stebbins, R. A., Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1985) · The Canadian Journal of Sociology · doi:10.2307/3340052 · Cited by 4,082
Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide to Researching Selves and Others
Davies, C. A. (1999) · Cited by 1,232
Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care
Crawford, M., Rutter, D., Manley, C., Weaver, T., Bhui, K. S., Fulop, N., & Tyrer, P. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7375.1263 · Cited by 982
Nilsen, E. S., Myrhaug, H. T., Johansen, M., Oliver, S. R., & Oxman, A. D. (2006) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004563.pub2 · Cited by 565
Savage, J. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7273.1400 · Cited by 463
Wolfe, C. D. A. (2000) · British Medical Bulletin · doi:10.1258/0007142001903120 · Cited by 458
Self-citationInvolving users in the delivery and evaluation of mental health services: systematic review
Simpson, E. L., & House, A. O. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7375.1265 · Cited by 350
Social movements in health: an introduction
Brown, P., & Zavestoski, S. M. (2004) · Sociology of Health & Illness · doi:10.1111/j.0141-9889.2004.00413.x · Cited by 338
The impact of stroke on informal carers: a literature review
Low, J., Payne, S. A., & Roderick, P. J. (1999) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00194-x · Cited by 275
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Castro, E. M., Regenmortel, T. V., Vanhaecht, K., Sermeus, W., & Hecke, A. V. (2016) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2016.07.026 · Cited by 955
Dixon‐Woods, M., McNicol, S., & Martin, G. P. (2012) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000760 · Cited by 615
The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review
Mockford, C., Staniszewska, S., Griffiths, F., & Herron-Marx, S. (2012) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzr066 · Cited by 570
Jones, R. H., Hunt, C. L., Stevens, R., Dalrymple, J. S. O., Driscoll, R., Sleet, S., & Smith, J. B. (2009) · British Journal of General Practice · doi:10.3399/bjgp09x420761 · Cited by 312
Guetterman, T. C. (2014) · Forum qualitative Sozialforschung · doi:10.17169/fqs-16.2.2290 · Cited by 346
Metadata
- Authors
- Fudge, N., Wolfe, C. D. A., & McKevitt, C.
- Affiliations
- King's College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Fudge, Nina
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2008-01-29
- Volume
- 336
- Issue
- 7639
- Pages
- 313-317
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- PMC
- PMC2234509
- OpenAlex
- W2023760594
- Cited by
- 200
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 26.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/Institute of Cancer Research
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0407-10184)
- King's College London
- Stanley Thomas Johnson Stiftung
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Services Management and Policy
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
- Keywords
- user participation, service user involvement, health service development, stroke care, service modernization, service user experiences, peer support, organizational structure, service quality, health policy implementation
- MeSH terms
- Communication, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, London, Patient Participation, State Medicine, Stroke
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
