Understanding views on topics of medical importance.

Examples of our Work - Healthcare and Medical Market Research

Background

Our client, a Health Authority in a largely rural area, wished to explore the most appropriate methods of obtaining and responding to the views of local people. In particular, the Authority wished to consider whether useful feedback could be obtained by regular focus group discussions with a panel of local residents.

Objectives

• To recruit a panel of 12 local residents, representative in demographic terms of the population of a small market town in the Authority’s area;

• To establish the willingness of panel members to meet on a regular basis to discuss issues on which the views of the general public would be of interest;

• To confirm their ability to contribute useful views on two selected topics.

It was later agreed to extend the study by convening similar discussions with members of the local Community Health Panel and comparing their views with those of the local residents.

Methodology

Invitations to join the panel were sent to a random sample of the local population. A panel of 12 members was carefully selected from the replies received to be broadly representative of the local population. Members did not need to have specialist medical knowledge or to have had any recent experience of hospitals or GPs.

The panel met on two occasions in a local hotel room. Both discussions were moderated by PCP’s Managing Director and attended by a representative of the Health Authority. The role of the Authority’s representative was to make the panel aware, where appropriate, of current practices, but not to give any indication of what was perceived to work well or badly. The first discussion was attended by all 12 panel members, the second by 11. The first discussion concerned local health needs in relation to the role of the local community hospital, the second considered acceptable waiting times for hospital operations. Briefing notes were issued in advance of each session to direct thinking along appropriate channels. For example, respondents were asked to consider, in advance of the discussion about waiting lists, whether certain types of operation and/or certain types of patient should be given priority over others and, if so, which. 

The report of the findings generated considerable interest and it was felt that it would be useful to compare the views of the general public with those of a more ‘professional’ panel drawn from members of the Community Health Council. There was no implication that one set of views was ‘right’ and the other ‘wrong’, merely that it would be useful to identify any differences. PCP was commissioned to carry out this follow-up work and eight members of the Community Health Council agreed to take part in discussions on the same two topics. PCP’s Managing Director again acted as moderator and steered the discussion to cover broadly the same points as had been covered by the local residents.

Outcome

• Both panels were felt to have contributed usefully to aspects of the medical decision-making process.

• The two panels were seen as complementary to each other rather than alternatives. On the one hand, the general public were detached from the medical process and potentially more able to make criticisms. Conversely the Health Community Panel brought background knowledge of current procedures and what was, or was not, realistic.

• It was felt that there would be advantages if the panel of local residents was split into two or more smaller panels, each of about half the size of the original. This would allow both a consistency check on the views expressed and greater depth to the discussions. The need to allow all 12 members of the panel to express their views in a meeting lasting c1½ hours had contributed to a slightly more superficial discussion than would otherwise have been likely.  

• Finally, the presence of the Health Authority representative was felt, on balance, to have been counter-productive. There was a tendency for panel members to ask questions to him rather than develop their own views.

• The results of the work were written up in a paper submitted for publication to the Health Service Journal.