Exploring the boundary of a specialist service for adults with intellectual disabilities using a Delphi study: A quantification of stakeholder participation

Health Expectations

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 676-688

  Hempe, Eva Maria ^a   Morrison, Cecily ^a   Holland, Anthony ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^c CAMBRIDGESHIRE AND PETERBOROUGH NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Delphi study; Intellectual disabilities; Participation; Quantitative evaluation; Service design; Stakeholder engagement

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CAREGIVER; DELPHI STUDY; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMAN; INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY; PSYCHOLOGY; SPECIALIZATION;

ADULT; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CAREGIVERS; DELPHI TECHNIQUE; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY; SPECIALIZATION;

EID: 84942295475     PISSN: 13696513     EISSN: 13697625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/hex.12107     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Michael J. Healthcare for all: report of the independent inquiry into access for healthcare for people with learning disabilities. London: Department of Health, 2008.
2. Department of Health. Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability in the 21st Century. London: Department of Health, 2001.
3. Smith AM, Fischbacher M. Stakeholder involvement in the new service design process. Journal of Financial Services Marketing. Palgrave Macmillan, 2000; 5: 21-31.
4. Holmlid S. Participative, co-operative, emancipatory: From participatory design to service design. First Nordic Conference on Service Design and Service Innovation, 2009. Conference proceedings. Available at: http://www.aho.no/en/AHO/News-and-events/Service-Design/Program1/PapersAbstracts/, accessed 5 July 2013.
5. Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grothe KH. Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. London: Springer, 2007.
6. Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Brook RH. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. American Journal of Public Health, 1984; 74: 979-983.
7. Sleep J, Bullock I, Grayson K. Establishing priorities for research in education within one college of nursing and midwifery. Nurse Education Today, 1995; 15: 439-445.
8. James P, Aitken P, Burns T. Research priorities for primary care mental health: a Delphi exercise. Primary Care Psychiatry, 2002; 8: 27-30.
9. Henry B, Moody LE, Pendergast JF, O'Donnell J, Hutchinson SA, Scully G. Delineation of nursing administration research priorities. Nursing Research, 1987; 36: 309-314.
10. Owens C, Ley A, Aitken P. Do different stakeholder groups share mental health research priorities? A four-arm Delphi study Health Expectations, 2008; 11: 418-431.
11. Chaplin E. User participation in clinical assessment and intervention SAINT [Internet]. Available at: http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/trial.aspx?trialid=ISRCTN90833792, accessed 5 July 2013.
12. Walmsley J, Johnson K. Inclusive Research with People with Learning Disabilities: Past, Present and Futures (Google eBook). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2003.
13. Aldridge J. Picture this: the use of participatory photographic research methods with people with learning disabilities. Disability & Society, 2007; 22: 1-17.
14. Frauenberger C, Good J, Keay-Bright W. Designing technology for children with special needs: bridging perspectives through participatory design. CoDesign, 2011; 7: 1-28.
15. Read S, Maslin-Prothero S. The involvement of users and carers in health and social research: the realities of inclusion and engagement. Qualitative Health Research, 2011; 1: 21.
16. Cooper A. The Inmates are Running the Asylum: Why High-tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity. Indianapolis: Sams, 1999.
17. Meroni A, Sangiorgi D. Design for Services. Design. Farnham: Gower, 2011.
18. Saco RM, Goncalves AP. Service design: an appraisal. Design management review. Wiley Online Library, 2008; 19: 10-19.
19. Hempe E-M. Applicability of Engineering Design Processes in the Design of Integrated Intellectual Disabilities Services in England. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 2011.
20. Ferguson ND, Davis AM, Slutsky AS, Stewart TE. Development of a clinical definition for acute respiratory distress syndrome using the Delphi technique. Journal of Critical Care, 2005; 20: 147-154.
21. Jones CG. A Delphi evaluation of agreement between organizations.In: Linstone HA, Turoff F (eds) The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1975: 160-167.
22. Grant G. Researching user and carer involvement in mental handicap services. In: Barnes M, Wistow G (eds) Researching User Involvement. Leeds: Nuffield Institute for Health Services Studies, University of Leeds, 1992: 65-86.
23. Powell C. The Delphi technique: myths and realities. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2003; 41: 376-382.
24. Holmlid S, Evenson S. Bringing Service Design to Service Sciences, Management and Engineering. In: Hefley B, Murphy W (eds) Service Science. New York: Springer, 2008; (2004): 376.
25. Bowen S, Dearden A, Wright P, Wolstenholme D, Cobb M. Participatory healthcare service design and innovation. In: Bodker K, Bratteteig T, Loi D, Robertson T (eds) Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference on - PDC '10. New York, NY, USA: ACM Press, 2010: 155-158.
26. Crawford MJ, Rutter D, Manley C et al. Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care. British Medical Journal, 2002; 325: 1263.
27. Litva A, Coast J, Donovan J et al. "The public is too subjective": public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Social Science & Medicine, 2002; 54: 1825-1837.
28. Kensing F, Blomberg J. Participatory design: issues and concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1998; 7: 167-185.
29. Lowes L, Robling MR, Bennert K et al. Involving lay and professional stakeholders in the development of a research intervention for the DEPICTED Study. Health Expectations, 2011; 14: 250-260.
30. House of Commons. User Involvement in Public Services: Sixth Report of Session 2007-08. Norwich: Stationary Office, 2008.
31. Fudge N, Wolfe CDA, McKevitt C. Assessing the promise of user involvement in health service development: ethnographic study. British Medical Journal. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd., 2008; 336: 313-317.
32. Hubbard G, Wilkinson H, Petch A. Users or losers: does the rhetoric of user involvement deliver: research overview. Research Policy and Planning, 2004; 22: 53-56.
33. Attree P, Morris S, Payne S, Vaughan S, Hinder S. Exploring the influence of service user involvement on health and social care services for cancer. Health Expectations, 2011; 14: 48-58.
34. Tritter JQ. Revolution or evolution: the challenges of conceptualizing patient and public involvement in a consumerist world. Health Expectations, 2009; 12: 275-287.
35. Tritter JQ. Public and patient participation in health care and health policy in the United Kingdom. Health Expectations, 2011; 14: 220-223.
36. Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy, 2002; 61: 213-236.
37. Doel M. Participation: Finding Out What Difference it Makes. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence, 2007.
38. Vargo SL, Lusch RF. Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2008; 36: 1-10.
39. Vargo SL, Lusch RF. Evolving to a new dominant logic. Journal of Marketing, 2004; 68: 1-17.
40. Elberse JE, Caron-Flinterman JF, Broerse JEW. Patient-expert partnerships in research: how to stimulate inclusion of patient perspectives. Health Expectations, 2011; 14: 225-239.
41. Gillard S, Borschmann R, Turner K, Goodrich-Purnell N, Lovell K, Chambers M. "What difference does it make?" Finding evidence of the impact of mental health service user researchers on research into the experiences of detained psychiatric patients. Health Expectations, 2010; 13: 185-194.