Developing consumer-directed care for people with a disability: 10 lessons for user participation in health and community care policy and program development
Goetz F. Ottmann A C and Carmel Laragy BA UnitingCare Community Options–Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia.
B RMIT University, GPO Box 2476, Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia. Email: carmel.laragy@rmit.edu.au
C Corresponding author. Email: goetz.ottmann@deakin.edu.au
Australian Health Review 34(4) 390-394 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH09759
Submitted: 12 March 2009 Accepted: 18 February 2010 Published: 25 November 2010
Journal Compilation © AHHA 2010
Abstract
This paper outlines 10 lessons derived from the development of a consumer-directed care program for families with disabled children in Melbourne, Australia. The following program elements proved to be of importance over the course of the development process: (1) research participants should be involved as early as possible; (2) an open, inclusive communication style in conjunction with a good understanding of potential concerns and a careful framing of the policy issue is required to build trust and allow meaningful collaboration; (3) various strands of evidence have to be woven together; (4) ongoing commitment and support from management and key stakeholders; (5) effective knowledge transfer and cultural change processes; (6) capacity building; (7) mediation of power differentials; (8) community building; (9) participant re-engagement strategies; and (10) solid project management skills.
What is known about the topic? User involvement in planning and decision making has become the policy of choice for government as well as health and social care service providers in most democratic countries. However, there are few examples highlighting key factors for successful user involvement.
What does this paper add? Based on a longitudinal review of a program developed with significant user involvement, this paper outlines 10 key requirements underpinning participatory strategies for project and policy design.
What are the implications for practitioners? Participatory methodologies are potentially complex, have to be meticulously planned and resourced, and have to be carefully managed. To meaningfully involve users in more intricate projects may require the input of experienced professionals.
References
[1] Department of Health. Our health, our care, our say: a new direction for community services (White Paper). Norwich, UK: Older People and Disabilities Division, Department of Health; 2006.[2] Administration on Ageing Choices for Independence: Modernizing the Older Americans Act. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Ageing; 2006.
[3] Real Voices, Real Choices: the qualities people expect from care services. Newcastle, UK: Commission for Social Care Inspection; 2006.
[4] Braye S. Participation and involvement in social care. In Kemshall H, Littlechild R, editors. User Involvement and Participation in Social Care. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 2000.
[5] Church J, Church J, Saunders D, Wanke M, Pong R, Spooner C, Dorgan M. Citizen participation in health decision-making: past experience and future prospects. J Public Health Policy 2002; 23 12–32.
| Citizen participation in health decision-making: past experience and future prospects.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12013713PubMed |
[6] Abelson J, Forest P-G, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin F-P. Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med 2003; 57 239–51.
| Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12765705PubMed |
[7] Kosciulek JF. Implications of consumer direction for disability policy development and rehabilitation service delivery. J Disabil Policy Stud 2000; 11 82–9.
| Implications of consumer direction for disability policy development and rehabilitation service delivery.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Kemshall H, Littlechild R. User Involvement and Participation in Social Care. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 2000.
[9] Parent W. Quality of life and consumer choice. In Wehman P, editor. The ADA mandate for social change. Baltimore: Brookes; 1993.
[10] National Council on Disability Achieving independence. J Disabil Policy Stud 1996; 7 57–65.
| Achieving independence.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[11] Rowe R, Shepherd M. Public participation in the new NHS: no closer to citizen control? Soc Policy Adm 2002; 36 275–90.
| Public participation in the new NHS: no closer to citizen control?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[12] Baggott R. A funny thing happened on the way to the forum? Reforming patient and public involvement in the NHS in England. Public Adm 2005; 83 533–51.
| A funny thing happened on the way to the forum? Reforming patient and public involvement in the NHS in England.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[13] Ottmann G, Laragy C, Damonze G. Consumer participation in designing community based consumer-directed disability care: lessons from a participatory action research-inspired project. Syst Pract Action Res 2009; 22 31–44.
| Consumer participation in designing community based consumer-directed disability care: lessons from a participatory action research-inspired project.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[14] Ottmann G, Laragy C, Haddon M. Experiences of disability consumer-directed care users in Australia: results from a longitudinal qualitative study. Health Soc Care Community 2009;
| Experiences of disability consumer-directed care users in Australia: results from a longitudinal qualitative study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19689678PubMed |
[15] Butler C, Rissel C, Kharvarpour F. The context for community participation in health action in Australia. Aust J Soc Issues 1999; 34 253–65.
[16] Milewa T. Local participatory democracy in Britain’s Health Service: innovation or fragmentation of a universal citizenship? Soc Policy Adm 2004; 38 240–52.
| Local participatory democracy in Britain’s Health Service: innovation or fragmentation of a universal citizenship?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[17] Milewa T, Dowswell G, Harrison S. Partnerships, power and the ‘new’ politics of community participation in British health care. Soc Policy Adm 2002; 36 796–809.
| Partnerships, power and the ‘new’ politics of community participation in British health care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[18] Morone JA, Kilbreth EH. Power to the people? Restoring citizen participation. J Health Polit Policy Law 2003; 28 271–88.
| Power to the people? Restoring citizen participation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12836886PubMed |
[19] Simmons R, Powell M, Greener I. The consumer in public service: Choice, values and difference. Bristol: Policy Press; 2009.
[20] Diamond P. Public Matters: The renewal of the public realm. London: Politico’s Publishing; 2007.
[21] Glendinning C, Kemp PA. Cash and Care: Policy challenges in the welfare state. Bristol: Policy Press; 2006.
[22] Glendinning C, Challis D, Fernandez J-L, Jacobs S, Jones K, Knapp M, et al. Evaluation of the Individual Budgets Pilot Program. Final Report. London: Social Policy Research Unit, Personal Social Services Research Unit, Social Care Workforce Research Unit; 2008.
[23] Simon-Rusinowitz L, Mahoney KJ, Marks LN, Zacharias BL, Loughlin DM. The cash and counseling demonstration and evaluation: focus group inform design of a consumer directed cash option. Care Manag J 2005; 6 56–65.
| The cash and counseling demonstration and evaluation: focus group inform design of a consumer directed cash option.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16544866PubMed |
[24] Tilly J. Recent research on consumer-directed home care in the Netherlands, England, Germany and the United States, outcomes. Australas J Ageing 2005; 24 S59
| Recent research on consumer-directed home care in the Netherlands, England, Germany and the United States, outcomes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[25] Ungerson C. Whose empowerment and independence? A cross-national perspective on ‘cash for care’ schemes. Ageing Soc 2004; 24 189–212.
| Whose empowerment and independence? A cross-national perspective on ‘cash for care’ schemes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[26] Kendrick M. The natural authority of families. Crucial Times 1996; 6(July). Available at http://www.socialrolevalorization.com/articles/kendrick/natural-authority-of-families.pdf [accessed 4 October].
[27] Kendrick M, Family-Governed Flexible Family Support: The Massachusetts Small Project Example. Working paper sponsored by Massachusetts Families Organizing for Change and Uniting Families for Change of Western Massachusetts. 2001. Available at http://www.kendrickconsulting.org/pubreg.asp?pid=22&ptype [accessed 4 October 2010].
[28] Ottmann G, Street AF. Ten lessons for developing a health information website. Aust Health Rev 2007; 31 523–6.
| Ten lessons for developing a health information website.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17973609PubMed |
[29] Shaw SE. Driving out alternative ways of seeing: the significance of neo-liberal policy mechanisms for UK primary care research. Soc Theory Health 2007; 5 316–37.
| Driving out alternative ways of seeing: the significance of neo-liberal policy mechanisms for UK primary care research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[30] Chung K, Lounsbury DW. The role of power, process, and relationships in participatory research for statewide HIV/AIDS programming. Soc Sci Med 2006; 63 2129–40.
| The role of power, process, and relationships in participatory research for statewide HIV/AIDS programming.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16828213PubMed |
