An Untapped Resource: Patient and Public Involvement in Implementation; Comment on “Knowledge Mobilization in Healthcare Organizations: A View From the Resource-Based View of the Firm”

Document Type : Commentary


School of Healthcare Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK


This commentary considers the potential role of patient and public involvement in implementation. Developing an analytical thread from the resource-based view of the Firm, we argue that this involvement may create unique resources that have the capacity to enhance the impact of implementation activity for healthcare organisations.


Main Subjects

  1. Burton CR, Rycroft-Malone J. Resource based view of the firm as a theoretical lens on the organisational consequences of quality improvement. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014;3(3):113-115. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2014.74
  2. Ferlie E, Crilly T, Jashapara A, Trenholm S, Peckham A, Currie G. Knowledge mobilization in healthcare organizations: a view from the resource-based view of the firm. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(3):127-130. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2015.35
  3. Bate P, Robert G. Bringing User Experience to Healthcare Improvement: The Concepts, Methods and Practices of Experience-Based Design. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing; 2007.
  4. Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Titchen A, Harvey G, Kitson A, McCormack B. What counts as evidence in evidence-based practice? J Adv Nurs 2004;47(1):81-90.
  5. Bate P, Robert G, Fulop N, Øvretveit J, Dixon-Woods M. Perspectives on Context. London: Health Foundation; 2014.
  6. Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet 2003;362(9391):1225-1230. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14546-1
  7. Ferlie E, Crilly T, Jashapara A, Peckham A. Knowledge mobilisation in healthcare: a critical review of health sector and generic management literature. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74(8):1297-1304. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.042
  8. Martin G. Representativeness, legitimacy and power in public involvement in health-service management. Soc Sci Med.2008;67(11):1757-1765.doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.024
  9. Brett J. Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7(4):387-395. doi:10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0
  10. Rycroft-Malone J, Wilkinson J, Burton C, et al. Collaborative action around implementation in Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care: towards a programme theory.  J Health Serv Res Policy2013;18(3):13-26. doi:10.1177/1355819613498859
  11. Stacey D, Légaré F, Col NF, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 2014; (1):CD001431. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub4
  12. Dobbins M, Robeson P, Ciliska D, et al. A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies. Imp Sci. 2009;4:23.doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-23
  13. 13.   Gagliardi AR, Legare F, Brouwers MC, et al. Protocol: developing a conceptual framework of patient mediated knowledge translation, systematic review using a realist approach. Imp Sci. 2011;6:25. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-25
  14. Davis RE, Pinto A, Sevdalis N, Vincent C, Massey R, Darzi A. Patients’ and health care professionals’ attitudes towards the PINK patient safety video. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18(4):848-853. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01688.x
  15. Chaboyer W, Bucknall T, Webster J, et al. INTroducing A Care bundle To prevent pressure injury (INTACT) in at-risk patients: A protocol for a cluster randomised trial. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015; doi:10.1016/j.ijnustu.2015.04.018
  16. Rycroft-Malone J. From knowing to doing – from the academic to practice: Comment on “The many meanings of evidence: implications for the translational science agenda in healthcare”. Int J Health Serv Manag 2014;2(1):45-46. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2014.08