» Articles » PMID: 36966339

Working Together: Reflections on How to Make Public Involvement in Research Work

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2023 Mar 25
PMID 36966339
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The importance of involving members of the public in the development, implementation and dissemination of research is increasingly recognised. There have been calls to share examples of how this can be done, and this paper responds by reporting how professional and lay researchers collaborated on a research study about falls prevention among older patients in English acute hospitals. It focuses on how they worked together in ways that valued all contributions, as envisaged in the UK standards for public involvement for better health and social care research.

Methods: The paper is itself an example of working together, having been written by a team of lay and professional researchers. It draws on empirical evidence from evaluations they carried out about the extent to which the study took patient and public perspectives into account, as well as reflective statements they produced as co-authors, which, in turn, contributed to the end-of-project evaluation.

Results: Lay contributors' deep involvement in the research had a positive effect on the project and the individuals involved, but there were also difficulties. Positive impacts included lay contributors focusing the project on areas that matter most to patients and their families, improving the quality and relevance of outcomes by contributing to data analysis, and feeling they were 'honouring' their personal experience of the subject of study. Negative impacts included the potential for lay people to feel overwhelmed by the challenges involved in achieving the societal or organisational changes necessary to address research issues, which can cause them to question their rationale for public involvement.

Conclusions: The paper concludes with practical recommendations for working together effectively in research. These cover the need to discuss the potential emotional impacts of such work with lay candidates during recruitment and induction and to support lay people with these impacts throughout projects; finding ways to address power imbalances and practical challenges; and tips on facilitating processes within lay groups, especially relational processes like the development of mutual trust.

Citing Articles

Involving stakeholders with lived and professional experience in a realist review of community mental health crisis services: a commentary.

Ashman M, Clibbens N, Thompson J, Gilburt H, Thompson E, Khalid Y Res Involv Engagem. 2024; 10(1):130.

PMID: 39696560 PMC: 11653646. DOI: 10.1186/s40900-024-00662-3.


Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE): how valuable and how hard? An evaluation of ALL_EARS@UoS PPIE group, 18 months on.

Hough K, Grasmeder M, Parsons H, Jones W, Smith S, Satchwell C Res Involv Engagem. 2024; 10(1):38.

PMID: 38605382 PMC: 11010367. DOI: 10.1186/s40900-024-00567-1.


Recommended characteristics and processes for writing lay summaries of healthcare evidence: a co-created scoping review and consultation exercise.

Zarshenas S, Mosel J, Chui A, Seaton S, Singh H, Moroz S Res Involv Engagem. 2023; 9(1):121.

PMID: 38124104 PMC: 10734197. DOI: 10.1186/s40900-023-00531-5.


Reflections on patient engagement by patient partners: how it can go wrong.

Richards D, Poirier S, Mohabir V, Proulx L, Robins S, Smith J Res Involv Engagem. 2023; 9(1):41.

PMID: 37308922 PMC: 10262483. DOI: 10.1186/s40900-023-00454-1.

References
1.
Maguire K, Britten N . 'You're there because you are unprofessional': patient and public involvement as liminal knowledge spaces. Sociol Health Illn. 2017; 40(3):463-477. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9566.12655. View

2.
Mann C, Chilcott S, Plumb K, Brooks E, Man M . Reporting and appraising the context, process and impact of PPI on contributors, researchers and the trial during a randomised controlled trial - the 3D study. Res Involv Engagem. 2018; 4:15. PMC: 5950252. DOI: 10.1186/s40900-018-0098-y. View

3.
Boylan A, Locock L, Thomson R, Staniszewska S . "About sixty per cent I want to do it": Health researchers' attitudes to, and experiences of, patient and public involvement (PPI)-A qualitative interview study. Health Expect. 2019; 22(4):721-730. PMC: 6737750. DOI: 10.1111/hex.12883. View

4.
Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K . Realist review--a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005; 10 Suppl 1:21-34. DOI: 10.1258/1355819054308530. View

5.
Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S . GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017; 358:j3453. PMC: 5539518. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j3453. View