Emily Jane Boam
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Emily Jane Boam has a total of 4 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Bruno Rushforth
NHS England North East and Yorkshire
1 shared publication - Claire Planner
Centre for Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
1 shared publication - Jessica Drinkwater
Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
1 shared publication - Luke Munford
School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 15 September 2025
- Published by Royal College of General Practitioners in British Journal of General Practice
- Vol. 76 (765) , e339-e346
Coverage and quality of patient participation groups: a mixed-methods analysis of Care Quality Commission reports
Background: Patient participation in health systems is increasing globally. English general practices have been required to establish patient participation groups (PPGs) since 2015. However, little is known about current PPG coverage and distribution. Aim: To explore the relationship between PPG coverage and quality with general practice deprivation deciles, geographical location, and Care Quality Commission (CQC) ratings. Design and setting: Mixed-methods documentary analysis of quantitative and qualitative data was carried out from general practice CQC reports in Yorkshire and Humber, England. Method: Data were extracted from CQC reports for practices in the most and least deprived areas across three integrated care systems (ICSs). Quantitative data examined PPG coverage by practice deprivation decile, location, and CQC rating. Qualitative thematic analysis assessed PPG quality. Results: Of 122 practices, 99 (81.1%) had a PPG, 16 (13.1%) lacked one, and seven (5.7%) had a partial PPG. Practices in the most deprived areas were significantly less likely to have a PPG than those in the least deprived areas ( P = 0.006). While there were minor differences in PPG coverage between ICS locations, no significant variation was observed based on CQC ratings. PPG activities included workforce adjustments and training, infrastructure, communications, accessibility and appointments, health promotion and education, and fundraising. Conclusion: Practices in the most deprived areas were significantly less likely to have a PPG ( P = 0.006), and their PPGs engaged in different activities compared with those in the least deprived areas. This may exacerbate inequalities as PPGs are one mechanism to support patient participation and improve general practice quality and experience.
- 15 September 2025
- Published by Royal College of General Practitioners in British Journal of General Practice
- Vol. 76 (765) , e339-e346
Open AccessCoverage and quality of patient participation groups: a mixed-methods analysis of Care Quality Commission reports
Background: Patient participation in health systems is increasing globally. English general practices have been required to establish patient participation groups (PPGs) since 2015. However, little is known about current PPG coverage and distribution. Aim: To explore the relationship between PPG coverage and quality with general practice deprivation deciles, geographical location, and Care Quality Commission (CQC) ratings. Design and setting: Mixed-methods documentary analysis of quantitative and qualitative data was carried out from general practice CQC reports in Yorkshire and Humber, England. Method: Data were extracted from CQC reports for practices in the most and least deprived areas across three integrated care systems (ICSs). Quantitative data examined PPG coverage by practice deprivation decile, location, and CQC rating. Qualitative thematic analysis assessed PPG quality. Results: Of 122 practices, 99 (81.1%) had a PPG, 16 (13.1%) lacked one, and seven (5.7%) had a partial PPG. Practices in the most deprived areas were significantly less likely to have a PPG than those in the least deprived areas ( P = 0.006). While there were minor differences in PPG coverage between ICS locations, no significant variation was observed based on CQC ratings. PPG activities included workforce adjustments and training, infrastructure, communications, accessibility and appointments, health promotion and education, and fundraising. Conclusion: Practices in the most deprived areas were significantly less likely to have a PPG ( P = 0.006), and their PPGs engaged in different activities compared with those in the least deprived areas. This may exacerbate inequalities as PPGs are one mechanism to support patient participation and improve general practice quality and experience.