BackgroundQuality practice of consumer engagement is still in its infancy in many sectors of medical research. The South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI) identified, early in its development, the opportunity to integrate evidence-driven consumer and community engagement into its operations.ProcessSAHMRI partnered with Health Consumers Alliance and consumers in evidence generation. A Partnership Steering Committee of researchers and consumers was formed for the project. An iterative mixed-method qualitative process was used to generate a framework for consumer engagement. This process included a literature review followed by semi-structured interviews with experts in consumer engagement and lead medical researchers, group discussions and a consensus workshop with the Partnership Steering Committee, facilitated by Health Consumer Alliance.OutcomesThe literature revealed a dearth of evidence about effective consumer engagement methodologies. Four organisational dimensions are reported to contribute to success, namely governance, infrastructure, capacity and advocacy. Key themes identified through the stakeholder interviews included sustained leadership, tangible benefits, engagement strategies should be varied, resourcing, a moral dimension, and challenges. The consensus workshop produced a framework and tangible strategies.ConclusionComprehensive examples of consumer participation in health and medical research are limited. There are few documented studies of what techniques are effective. This evidence-driven framework, developed in collaboration with consumers, is being integrated in a health and medical research institute with diverse programs of research. This framework is offered as a contribution to the evidence base around meaningful consumer engagement and as a template for other research institutions to utilise.

No abstract

To assess the effects of consumer engagement in health care policy, research and services. We updated a review published in 2006 and 2009 and revised the previous search strategies for key databases (The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Web of Science) up to February 2020. Selection criteria included randomised controlled trials assessing consumer engagement in developing health care policy, research, or health services. The International Association for Public Participation, Spectrum of Public Participation was used to identify, describe, compare and analyse consumer engagement. Outcome measures were effects on people; effects on the policy/research/health care services; or process outcomes. We included 23 randomised controlled trials with a moderate or high risk of bias, involving 136,265 participants. Most consumer engagement strategies adopted a consultative approach during the development phase of interventions, targeted to health services. Based on four large cluster-randomised controlled trials, there is evidence that consumer engagement in the development and delivery of health services to enhance the care of pregnant women results in a reduction in neonatal, but not maternal, mortality. From other trials, there is evidence that involving consumers in developing patient information material results in material that is more relevant, readable and understandable for patients, and can improve knowledge. Mixed effects are reported of consumer-engagement on the development and/or implementation of health professional training. There is some evidence that using consumer interviewers instead of staff in satisfaction surveys can have a small influence on the results. There is some evidence that consumers may have a role in identifying a broader range of health care priorities that are complementary to those from professionals. There is some evidence that consumer engagement in monitoring and evaluating health services may impact perceptions of patient safety or quality of life. There is growing evidence from randomised controlled trials of the effects of consumer engagement on the relevance and positive outcomes of health policy, research and services. Health care consumers, providers, researchers and funders should continue to employ evidence-informed consumer engagement in their jurisdictions, with embedded evaluation. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42018102595.

Disease management programs have historically had difficulty demonstrating the financial value of their programs using statistically rigorous methods. This preliminary study utilized a predictive model built from a control group that consisted of individual employer groups whose benefits managers did not purchase disease management. The purpose of this evaluation was to examine the cost savings associated with Health Management Corporation's disease management program for asthma, diabetes, and coronary artery disease. Study and control group members were identified with exactly the same selection criteria as self-insured employer groups (n = 76,194) with preferred provider organization health plans that offered the disease management program. The study group consisted of members (n = 1,009) who were identified as having any of the three conditions and were eligible for the disease management program, regardless of the extent of their participation. The control group included members (n = 2,491) who were identified as having any of the same three conditions. The control group data were used to develop a predictive model designed to calculate expected medical claims costs for the study group. The gross savings of the disease management program was measured by calculating the difference between the expected medical claims costs predicted by the model and the actual medical claims costs for the study group. Preliminary analyses indicate that Health Management Corporation's disease management program produced a return on investment of $2.84: $1.00 and $1.45 gross savings per member per month.

Disease management (DM) is rapidly becoming an important force in the late 20th and early 21st century as a strategy for managing the chronic illness of large populations. Given the increasing visibility of DM programs, the clinical, economic and financial impact of this support are vital to DM program accountability and its acceptance as a solution to the twin challenges of achieving affordable, quality health care. Measuring and reporting outcomes in DM is difficult. DM programs must adapt to local market conditions and customer desires, which in turn limits generalizability, and still account for the overlapping/interlocking/multifaceted nature of the interventions included in any DM program. The Disease Management Association of America convened a Steering Committee to suggest a preferred approach, not a mandated or standardized approach for DM program evaluation. This paper presents the Steering Committee's "Consensus Statement" and "Guiding Principles" for robust evaluation.