Exploring the impact of patient and public involvement with young people with a chronic condition: A multilevel analysis

Authors are experiencing increasing competition for their articles to be published. One way of ensuring their work is given the best chance of being published is to underpin their research with rigorous methods that are characterized by robustness, accuracy and reliability. A common factor that can stymie research rigour is common method bias. Our aim in this article is to outline the nature of, concerns about and examine reasons why researchers still conduct studies that are susceptible to common method bias. We also provide some solutions for avoiding or managing common method bias concerns. In doing this, we acknowledge the substantial work that has been produced on this topic to date and, therefore, focus our contribution specifically on issues that affect research in applied and managerial settings. JEL Classification: C90, D23

For 35 years, Arnstein's ladder of citizen participation has been a touchstone for policy makers and practitioners promoting user involvement. This article critically assesses Arnstein's writing in relation to user involvement in health drawing on evidence from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and Canada. Arnstein's model, however, by solely emphasizing power, limits effective responses to the challenge of involving users in services and undermines the potential of the user involvement process. Such an emphasis on power assumes that it has a common basis for users, providers and policymakers and ignores the existence of different relevant forms of knowledge and expertise. It also fails to recognise that for some users, participation itself may be a goal. We propose a new model to replace the static image of a ladder and argue that for user involvement to improve health services it must acknowledge the value of the process and the diversity of knowledge and experience of both health professionals and lay people.

Serious chronic illness can have a detrimental effect on school attendance, participation and engagement, leaving affected students at risk of failing to meet their developmental potential. An improved understanding of factors that help to explain or mitigate this risk can help educators and health professionals deliver the most effective support. This meta-review critiqued the available evidence examining the link between six chronic illnesses (asthma, cancer, chronic kidney diseases, heart diseases, cystic fibrosis and gastrointestinal diseases) and children's and adolescents' school experiences and outcomes, as well as investigating the medical, school, psychosocial and sociodemographic factors that are linked to poorer or better school outcomes.