Supporting public involvement in interview and other panels: a systematic review

Article English OPEN
Baxter, Susan ; Clowes, Mark ; Muir, Delia ; Baird, Wendy ; Broadway‐Parkinson, Andrea ; Bennett, Carole (2016)
  • Publisher: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
  • Journal: Health Expectations : An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy (issn: 1369-6513, vol: 20, pp: 807-817)
  • Related identifiers: doi: 10.1111/hex.12491, pmc: PMC5600233
  • Subject: Review Articles | lay members | Review Article | public representatives | public involvement | systematic review | public participation

Abstract Background Members of the public are increasingly being invited to become members of a variety of different panels and boards. Objective This study aimed to systematically search the literature to identify studies relating to support or training provided to members of the public who are asked to be members of an interview panel. Search strategy A systematic search for published and unpublished studies was carried out from June to September 2015. The search methods included electronic database searching, reference list screening, citation searching and scrutinizing online sources. Inclusion criteria We included studies of any design including published and unpublished documents which outlined preparation or guidance relating to public participants who were members of interview panels or representatives on other types of panels or committees. Data synthesis Results were synthesised via narrative methods. Main results Thirty‐six documents were included in the review. Scrutiny of this literature highlighted ten areas which require consideration when including members of the public on interview panels: financial resources; clarity of role; role in the interview process; role in evaluation; training; orientation/induction; information needs; terminology; support; and other public representative needs such as timing, accessibility and support with information technology. Discussion and conclusions The results of the review emphasize a range of elements that need to be fully considered when planning the involvement of public participants on interview panels. It highlights potential issues relating to the degree of involvement of public representatives in evaluating/grading decisions and the need for preparation and on‐going support.
  • References (49)
    49 references, page 1 of 5

    .lttrakeeu 01)(0205 trygeuho&30()tsanoE1012 ssyeenooR&81)(2080 .l(ttaaake2010 aanhno&1()ttraeS0203w l.itscaenoo 1)(2012 '.ltraaaeH82)(2051 .ltrsaakee 14)(2014 2i()rcakd0021 .litrscaaenhdo 41)(2031 l.ttrsaeebo 5)(2010 .lltcaakeund 23)(2090

    B D J M M M O P P R R B 1. Mosconi P, Satolli R, Colombo C, Villani W. Does a consumer training

    Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10:6. 2. Pickard S. A 'third way' for lay involvement: what evidence so far?

    Health Expect. 2001;4:170-179. 3. Florin D. Public involvement in health care. BMJ. 2004;328:159. 4. INVOLVE. Strategy 2012-2015. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2012. htp://

    egy2012-15.pdf. Accessed September 29, 2015. 5. Roberts P, Wild K, Washington K, Mounotfrd C, Capewell J. Inclusion

    2010;24:42-47. 6. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. 2015. Critical appraisal of sur -

    Questions-for-a-Survey.pdf. Accessed August 31, 2015. 7. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Cohort Study Checklist.

    Oxford: CASP; 2014. 8. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Qualitative Study Checklist.

    Oxford: CASP; 2014. 9. Browne G, Lakeman R, O'Brien AP, Chan S. Service users on interview

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark