‘All hands-on deck’, working together to develop UK standards for public involvement in research

Background: Public involvement in research is an established part of the research process in the UK, however there remain questions about what good public involvement in research looks and feels like. Until now public involvement practitioners, researchers and members of the public have looked for answers in examples shared across networks, published case studies, guidance and research articles. Pulling these strands together, the UK Standards for Public Involvement provides six statements (standards) about public involvement in research. They were produced by a partnership of organisations from Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England with contributions from involvement practitioners, public partners, researchers and research funders. Main body: Each standard has reflective questions, which are designed to encourage standard users to use approaches and behaviours that improve involvement, over time. The standards are designed to be used as a practical tool, and reflect the agreed hallmarks of good public involvement in research for example, flexibility in approaches used, shared learning, and mutual respect. The standards development process is described from the initial idea and scoping, via the appraisal of existing standard sets and integration of values and principles in public involvement in research. The collaborative writing process of and consultation on the draft standard set is described, together with what changed as a result of feedback. The initiation of a year-long testing programme with forty participating research organisations, the experiential feedback and the resulting changes to the standards is summarised. Conclusion: This commentary paper describes, in some detail, a process to develop a set of six standards for public involvement in research in the UK. Producing a complex, national public involvement initiative is not without its challenges, and in supplementary material partnership members reflect on and share their experiences of standards development. The next phase of integration and implementation is explored with concluding comments from those that tested and helped improve the standards

Keeping it credible in cohort multiple Randomised Controlled Trials: the Community Ageing Research 75+ (CARE 75+) study model of patient and public involvement and engagement

Background There is increasing guidance on how to make the most of the rich seam of data provided by large cohort studies, and growing recognition of the benefits of cohort multiple Randomised Controlled Trials (cmRCT) in health research. In contrast, there is a lack of discussion about patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in these large and complex research infrastructures. Methods Our aim was to create a structure to enable meaningful, sustainable public involvement within the cmRCT framework. We have established a core reference group of four key individuals with extensive links to other relevant local community structures and individuals. Results Using the CARE 75+ model we have engaged with a wide variety of patients and the public in a relatively short space of time. Activities have included scrutiny of protocols and assessment tools, and process evaluations; resulting in system efficiencies, increased recruitment and a more focused research agenda. Conclusions There is a need for strong public oversight and flexible models of PPIE in cmRCTs. The model of PPIE developed in the Community Ageing Research 75+ study presents one potential way to foster expertise and enable diversity

An evidence base to optimise methods for involving patient and public contributors in clinical trials: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND: In comparison with other study designs, randomised trials are regarded as particularly likely to benefit from patient and public involvement (PPI). Using mixed-methods research we investigated PPI from the perspectives of researchers and PPI contributors. METHODS: Randomised trials in receipt of funding from the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme between 2006 and 2010 were identified. Funding applications and board and referee comments were obtained and data relevant to PPI extracted. Chief investigators (CIs), PPI contributors and UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units (RCTUs) were surveyed. Interviews were conducted with researchers and PPI contributors. RESULTS: A total of 111 trials were included. Text relevant to PPI was identified in half of the trials for which the first-stage applications were available, but only one-quarter described PPI within their development. In the second stage of the application, the majority provided some text relevant to PPI, with over half having PPI in their development. Fewer than half of referees commented on PPI, and funding boards rarely provided comments in relation to PPI. Seventy-three per cent (81 of 111) of CIs responded to the survey and 98% (79 of 81) included PPI at some stage in their trial. CIs considered high impact from PPI contributors to occur more frequently in trial setup, with low or no impact being more common during trial conduct, analysis and dissemination. Only one-third of CIs provided PPI contributor contact details but all contributors contacted completed the survey. The majority of contributors felt engaged and valued by the research team. Interviews were conducted with researchers and/or PPI contributors for 28 trials identifying two main influences on perception of PPI impact: whether or not CIs expressed personal goals and plans for PPI; and the quality of their relationship with the PPI contributors. The importance of early engagement was identified, with opportunity for input thereafter limited. Three PPI roles were identified: oversight, managerial and responsive. Oversight roles, as required by funders, were associated with low impact in comparison with responsive or managerial roles. Most researchers could see some value in PPI training for researchers, although those that had received such training themselves expressed concerns about its purpose and evidence base. Training for PPI contributors was considered unnecessary, with conversational approaches preferred, although this did not appear to provide an opportunity for role negotiation. The RCTU survey response rate was 85% (39 of 46). The majority (37 of 39) reported PPI within trials co-ordinated by their unit. Trial characteristics were used by half to determine the approach to PPI. Two-thirds reported recent developments or changes in implementing plans for PPI (21 of 33). Support to PPI contributors was commonly offered through members of staff at the unit. CONCLUSIONS: PPI is occurring in the majority of trials funded by the HTA programme, but uncertainty remains about how it is assessed and valued. Early involvement, building a relationship between researchers and contributors, responsive or managerial roles, and having defined goals for PPI were associated with impact. Efficiency could be gained by utilising the RCTU network to identify and tackle challenges, and develop a risk-based approach utilising trial characteristics. Recommendations are made to trial funders and the research community. Given the difficulties for some informants in recalling PPI contributions, future research using a prospective approach would be valuable. Ethnographic research that combines observation and multi-informant interviews is likely to be informative in identifying impact. The research community needs to give further consideration to processes for selecting PPI contributors and models of implementing PPI

Reflections and Experiences of a Co-Researcher involved in a Renal Research Study

Background Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is seen as a prerequisite for health research. However, current Patient and public involvement literature has noted a paucity of recording of patient and public involvement within research studies. There have been calls for more recordings and reflections, specifically on impact. Renal medicine has also had similar criticisms and any reflections on patient and public involvement has usually been from the viewpoint of the researcher. Roles of patient and public involvement can vary greatly from sitting on an Advisory Group to analysing data. Different PPI roles have been described within studies; one being a co-researcher. However, the role of the co-researcher is largely undefined and appears to vary from study to study. Methods The aims of this paper are to share one first time co-researcher's reflections on the impact of PPI within a mixed methods (non-clinical trial) renal research study. A retrospective, reflective approach was taken using data available to the co-researcher as part of the day-to-day research activity. Electronic correspondence and documents such as meeting notes, minutes, interview thematic analysis and comments on documents were re-examined. The co-researcher led on writing this paper. Results This paper offers a broad definition of the role of the co-researcher. The co-researcher reflects on undertaking and leading on the thematic analysis of interview transcripts, something she had not previously done before. The co-researcher identified a number of key themes; the differences in time and responsibility between being a coresearcher and an Advisory Group member; how the role evolved and involvement activities could match the co-researchers strengths (and the need for flexibility); the need for training and support and lastly, the time commitment. It was also noted that it is preferable that a co-researcher needs to be involved from the very beginning of the grant application. Conclusions The reflections, voices and views of those undertaking PPI has been largely underrepresented in the literature. The role of co-researcher was seen to be rewarding but demanding, requiring a large time commitment. It is hoped that the learning from sharing this experience will encourage others to undertake this role, and encourage researchers to reflect on the needs of those involved.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Learning as an outcome of involvement in research : what are the implications for practice, reporting and evaluation?

Abstract Public involvement in research has evolved over the last two decades in a culture dominated by the principles of evidence-based medicine. It is therefore unsurprising that some researchers have applied the same thinking to involvement, particularly to involvement in research projects. This may explain why they tend to conceptualise involvement as an intervention, seek to evaluate its impact in the same way that treatments are tested, highlight the need for an evidence-base for involvement, and use the language of research to describe its practice and report its outcomes. In this article we explore why this thinking may be unhelpful. We suggest an alternative approach that conceptualises involvement as ‘conversations that support two-way learning’. With this framing, there is no ‘method’ for involvement, but a wide range of approaches that need to be tailored to the context and the needs of the individuals involved. The quality of the interaction between researchers and the public becomes more important than the process. All parties need to be better prepared to offer and receive constructive criticism and to engage in constructive conflict that leads to the best ideas and decisions. The immediate outcomes of involvement in terms of what researchers learn are subjective (specific to the researcher) and unpredictable (because researchers don’t know what they don’t know at the start). This makes it challenging to quantify such outcomes, and to carry out comparisons of different approaches. On this basis, we believe obtaining ‘robust evidence’ of the outcomes of involvement in ways that are consistent with the values of evidence-based medicine, may not be possible or appropriate. We argue that researchers’ subjective accounts of what they learnt through involvement represent an equally valid way of knowing whether involvement has made a difference. Different approaches to evaluating and reporting involvement need to be adopted, which describe the details of what was said and learnt by whom (short term outcomes), what changes were made as a result (medium term outcomes), and the long-term, wider impacts on the research culture and agenda. Sharing researchers’ personal accounts may support wider learning about how involvement works, for whom and when

Power to the people: To what extent has public involvement in applied health research achieved this?

Public involvement in applied health research is a pre-requisite for funding from many funding bodies. In particular the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) in the UK, clearly states that it values lay knowledge and there is an expectation that members of the public will participate as research partners in research. As a result a large public involvement infrastructure has emerged to facilitate this. However, there is concern that despite the flurry of activity in promoting public involvement, lay knowledge is marginalised and has limited impact on research decision-making. This article asks to what extent has power shifted from the scientific research community to the public? It discusses the meaning of power and models of public involvement and examines the development of public involvement in applied health research. It identifies public involvement in a range of decision-making: identifying priority areas for commissioning research; making decisions about which projects are funded; decisions about details of research design. Whilst there is evidence that the public voice is present in the composition of research proposals submitted to NIHR and in the decision-making about which projects are funded and how they are carried out, there is less evidence of a change in the power dynamic manifest in social relations between the scientific research community and the public. As a result the biomedical model remains dominant and largely unchallenged in research decision-making

An annotated and critical glossary of the terminology of inclusion in healthcare and health research

yesThe importance of including members of the public has been accorded a significant position in health planning, service delivery and research. But this position masks a lack of clarity about terms that are used. This paper identifies terms that are in common use in the lexicon of community based involvement and engagement in health with the intention of clarifying meaning and thus reducing ambiguity. We define and distinguish between key terms related to inclusion, we consider the terminology attached to community processes and to the challenges of inclusion and we engage with the strengths and weaknesses of the commonly used metaphor of "a ladder of participation". We wish to contribute to the clear communication of intentions, challenges and achievements in pursuing varied forms of inclusion in health