Abstract

Plain English summaryBackgroundPatient and public involvement means researchers working with members of the public, patients or carers to jointly plan and carry out research.AimThis article is written by members of three involvement groups, and the university employees that they work with. We wanted to jointly reflect on what enables our collaborative work, and what the challenges are for everyone involved.What we did and how we did itWe wanted to establish what the literature defines as ‘good’ public involvement and compare this with processes and practices in our involvement groups. We therefore carried out a literature review and each group met separately to discuss what characterises good involvement, and what the challenges are. From these discussions we developed a set of descriptions about each group. We compared the literature review findings with what came out of the discussions within the involvement groups.FindingsSome of the involvement principles from the literature were similar to the priorities of the involvement groups. In addition, the groups identified characteristics of ‘good’ involvement practice that were not reported in the literature: passion and enthusiasm, informal and welcoming meeting spaces, and opportunities to share lived experiences. In this article we present examples of how principles for good involvement are practiced in these groups, and difficulties we have experienced.BackgroundPatient and public involvement is important for producing relevant and accessible health research. Evidence of impact from involvement is growing, but there is also a need for research on how to create conditions for meaningful collaborations between researchers and public advisers.ObjectiveWe report on a co-produced self-reflective evaluation of involvement practices in three UK research programmes.MethodsA structured review identified research-based principles for ‘good’ public involvement in research. In parallel, members of three involvement groups co-developed statements on how the groups work, and enablers and challenges to collaborative research. The author team analysed these statements using the findings from the review.ResultsWe identified 11 international articles reporting research-based principles for involvement published between 2013 and 2017. We identified five ‘values’ and seven ‘practice principles’ for ‘good’ involvement. There was convergence between these principles and the priorities of the involvement groups. But the groups also identified additional good involvement practice that were not reported by the literature: passion, enthusiasm, informal and welcoming meeting spaces, and opportunities to share lived experiences. We present examples of how principles for good involvement are practiced in these groups, and highlight principles that have been challenging to implement.ConclusionsOngoing appraisal of public involvement is crucial. We present a process for self-evaluation, illuminate what ‘good’ means to researchers and public advisers involved in research, and identify areas for improvement. We conclude that provision of resources that enable support to public advisers in turn enable universities and research teams to implement other principles of good involvement.

Highlights

  • Introduce the topic using the lay summary. min Explain that three Involvement groups will each complete the same exercise separately to feed in to the work. The exercise is based around three questions which are intended to prompt thought and discussion in the group: There are no right or wrong answers to the questions, the exercise will help paint a picture of what makes each group unique. Question: How is this group best described in terms of what it does, and how it is set up? Recap group function as a reminder to give ideas.Work alone to answer the question Members to think about the question and write individual answers/important areas/ keywords on post it notes

  • We present a process for self-evaluation, illuminate what ‘good’ means to researchers and public advisers involved in research, and identify areas for improvement

  • We conclude that provision of resources that enable support to public advisers in turn enable universities and research teams to implement other principles of good involvement

Read more

Summary

Background

Collaborative research between patients, carers, members of the public, communities and researchers is mandated by funding agencies in many countries [1,2,3,4,5]. Research question 2: How do these principles for good involvement, identified in the literature, compare with the views of members of our three involvement groups? This article is co-written by members of the public, patients and parent carers, public involvement facilitators and researchers It conveys multiple perspectives from our collaborative work across the three involvement groups on how we ‘live’ principles for good involvement. Involvement contexts The public advisors who co-authored this article are residents of specific neighbourhoods, members of community groups, patients, carers, and parents of children with long-term neurological conditions. They are all members of long-standing public involvement groups set up and run by university-based health researchers. A database entry limit of January 1st 2013 was applied to capture literature published after the most

Methods
Results
Conclusions
15 Introduction
10 Wrap up session min
Discussion
Limitations
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.