» Articles » PMID: 24939808

Exploring Perceived Barriers, Drivers, Impacts and the Need for Evaluation of Public Involvement in Health and Social Care Research: a Modified Delphi Study

Overview
Journal BMJ Open
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2014 Jun 19
PMID 24939808
Citations 61
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To explore areas of consensus and conflict in relation to perceived public involvement (PI) barriers and drivers, perceived impacts of PI and ways of evaluating PI approaches in health and social care research.

Background: Internationally and within the UK the recognition of potential benefits of PI in health and social care research is gathering momentum and PI is increasingly identified by organisations as a prerequisite for funding. However, there is relatively little examination of the impacts of PI and how those impacts might be measured.

Design: Mixed method, three-phase, modified Delphi technique, conducted as part of a larger MRC multiphase project.

Sample: Clinical and non-clinical academics, members of the public, research managers, commissioners and funders.

Findings: This study found high levels of consensus about the most important barriers and drivers to PI. There was acknowledgement that tokenism was common in relation to PI; and strong support for the view that demonstrating the impacts and value of PI was made more difficult by tokenistic practice. PI was seen as having intrinsic value; nonetheless, there was clear support for the importance of evaluating its impact. Research team cohesion and appropriate resources were considered essential to effective PI implementation. Panellists agreed that PI can be challenging, but can be facilitated by clear guidance, together with models of good practice and measurable standards.

Conclusions: This study is the first to present empirical evidence of the opinions voiced by key stakeholders on areas of consensus and conflict in relation to perceived PI barriers and drivers, perceived impacts of PI and the need to evaluate PI. As such it further contributes to debate around best practice in PI, the potential for tokenism and how best to evaluate the impacts of PI. These findings have been used in the development of the Public Involvement Impact Assessment Framework (PiiAF), an online resource which offers guidance to researchers and members of the public involved in the PI process.

Citing Articles

Research quality and dissemination of paediatric randomised controlled trials with and without patient and family engagement: systematic review.

Borkhoff C, Hattangadi N, Nurse K, Kay T, Bhalla M, Mahood Q BMJ Open. 2025; 15(3):e086934.

PMID: 40074267 PMC: 11904335. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086934.


Patient and public involvement in neonatal research - experiences and insights from parents and researchers.

Bjerregaard M, Poulsen I, Carlsen E, Esparza A, Smith J, Brodsgaard A Res Involv Engagem. 2025; 11(1):1.

PMID: 39762952 PMC: 11705940. DOI: 10.1186/s40900-024-00670-3.


Implementation of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) for the therapies for long COVID in non-hospitalised individuals (TLC) project.

Aiyegbusi O, McMullan C, Hughes S, Turner G, Haroon S, Hotham R Res Involv Engagem. 2024; 10(1):120.

PMID: 39516880 PMC: 11549767. DOI: 10.1186/s40900-024-00654-3.


Establishment of a patient and public involvement and engagement group to support clinical trials in Pakistan: Initial lessons learned.

Tolppa T, Hussaini A, Ahmed N, Dondorp A, Farooq S, Khan M Res Involv Engagem. 2024; 10(1):98.

PMID: 39334505 PMC: 11429104. DOI: 10.1186/s40900-024-00635-6.


A rapid review of guidelines on the involvement of adolescents in health research.

Warraitch A, Wacker C, Bruce D, Bourke A, Hadfield K Health Expect. 2024; 27(3):e14058.

PMID: 38855830 PMC: 11163265. DOI: 10.1111/hex.14058.


References
1.
Campbell S, Braspenning J, Hutchinson A, Marshall M . Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002; 11(4):358-64. PMC: 1758017. DOI: 10.1136/qhc.11.4.358. View

2.
Wyatt K, Carter M, Mahtani V, Barnard A, Hawton A, Britten N . The impact of consumer involvement in research: an evaluation of consumer involvement in the London Primary Care Studies Programme. Fam Pract. 2008; 25(3):154-61. DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmn019. View

3.
Beretta R . A critical review of the Delphi technique. Nurse Res. 2016; 3(4):79-89. DOI: 10.7748/nr.3.4.79.s8. View

4.
Nilsen E, Myrhaug H, Johansen M, Oliver S, Oxman A . Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006; (3):CD004563. PMC: 6464810. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004563.pub2. View

5.
Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R . Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ. 2002; 324(7347):1183. PMC: 111107. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1183. View