Using Needs Assessment to Understand Continuing Disability in Patients with Enduring Mental Illness. Implications for Considerations of Service Development

Particular strengths of the MRC Needs for Care Assessment Schedule have been used to investigate the treatment status of patients with persistent psychiatric disability in ways that other needs assessment tools are unable to. One hundred and seventy-nine such patients from three settings; a private sector psychiatric hospital, two public sector day hospitals situated in the same town, and a high security hospital, were found to have a high level of need. Although there were differences between settings, overall these needs were well met in all three. The high level of persistent disability found amongst these patients could not be attributed to failure on the part of those treating them to use the best available methods, or to failures to comply or engage with treatment on the patient's part. In some two thirds of instances persistent disability was best explained by the fact that even the most suitable available treatments have to be considered only partially effective.

Representativeness, legitimacy and power in public involvement in health-care management

Public participation in health-service management is an increasingly prominent policy internationally. Frequently, though, academic studies have found it marginalized by health professionals who, keen to retain control over decision-making, undermine the legitimacy of involved members of the public, in particular by questioning their representativeness. This paper examines this negotiation of representative legitimacy between staff and involved users by drawing on a qualitative study of service-user involvement in pilot cancer-genetics services recently introduced in England, using interviews, participant observation and documentary analysis. In contrast to the findings of much of the literature, health professionals identified some degree of representative legitimacy in the contributions made by users. However, the ways in which staff and users constructed representativeness diverged significantly. Where staff valued the identities of users as biomedical and lay subjects, users themselves described the legitimacy of their contribution in more expansive terms of knowledge and citizenship. My analysis seeks to show how disputes over representativeness relate not just to a struggle for power according to contrasting group interests, but also to a substantive divergence in understanding of the nature of representativeness in the context of state-orchestrated efforts to increase public participation. This divergence might suggest problems with the enactment of such aspirations in practice; alternatively, however, contestation of representative legitimacy might be understood as reflecting ambiguities in policy-level objectives for participation, which secure implementation by accommodating the divergent constructions of those charged with putting initiatives into practice.

Whose health, whose care, whose say? Some comments on public involvement in new NHS commissioning arrangements

Recent health policy in England has demanded greater involvement of patients and the public in the commissioning of health and social care services. Public involvement is seen as a means of driving up service quality, reducing health inequalities and achieving value in commissioning decisions. This paper presents a summary and analysis of the forms that public involvement in commissioning are to take, along with empirical analysis from a qualitative study of service-user involvement. It is argued that the diversity of constituencies covered by the notion of ‘public involvement’, and the breadth of aims that public involvement is expected to achieve, require careful disaggregation. Public involvement in commissioning may encompass a variety of interest groups, whose inputs may include population needs assessment, evaluation of service quality, advocacy of the interests of a particular patient group or service, or a combination of all of these. Each of these roles may be legitimate, but there are significant tensions between them. The extent to which the structures for public involvement proposed recognize these possible tensions is arguably limited. Notably, new Local Involvement Networks (LINks), which will feed into commissioning decisions, are set as the arbiters of these different interests, a demanding role which will require considerable skill, tenacity and robustness if it is to be fulfilled effectively.

MATCH: a new industry-focused approach to medical device development

MATCH (Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare) is a new collaboration in the UK that aims to support the healthcare sector by creating methods to assess the value of medical devices from concept through to mature product. A major aim of MATCH is to encourage the inclusion of the user throughout the product lifecycle in order to achieve devices that truly meet the requirements of their users. A review of the published literature indicates that user requirements are mainly collected during the design and evaluation stage of the product lifecycle whilst other areas, including the concept stage, have less user involvement. Complementing the literature review is an in-depth consultation with the medical device industry, which has identified a number of barriers encountered by companies when attempting to capture user requirements. These will be addressed by a number of case study projects, performed in collaboration with our industrial partners, that will examine the application and utility of different approaches to collecting and analysing data on user requirements. MATCH is focused on providing advice to device developers on how to select and apply methods that have maximum theoretical strength, practical application, cost-effectiveness and likelihood of wide sector acceptance. Feedback will be sought in order to ensure that the needs of the diverse medical device sector are met.

Inclusion, Participation and the Emergence of British Chinese Websites

Previous work has drawn attention to the relative absence of British Chinese voices in public culture. No one is more aware of this invisibility than British-born Chinese people themselves. Since 2000 the emergence of Internet discussion sites produced by British Chinese young people has provided an important forum for many of them to grapple with questions concerning their identities, experiences and status in Britain. In this paper we explore the ways in which Internet usage by British-born Chinese people has facilitated forms of self-expression, collective identity production and social and political action. This examination of British Chinese websites raises important questions about inclusion and exclusion, citizenship, participation and the development of a sense of belonging in Britain, issues which are usually overlooked in relation to a group which appears to be well integrated and successful in higher education.