Cargando…

Using the UK standards for public involvement to evaluate the public involvement sections of annual reports from NIHR managed research centres

BACKGROUND: Within the United Kingdom (UK), the National Institute for Health and Care Research is the largest funder of health and social care research, and additionally funds research centres that support the development and delivery of research. Each year, award-holders of these research centres...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moult, Alice, Baker, Dereth, Aries, Ali, Bailey, Paul, Blackburn, Steven, Kingstone, Tom, Lwembe, Saumu, Paskins, Zoe
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10688454/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38037160
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00517-3
_version_ 1785152174916894720
author Moult, Alice
Baker, Dereth
Aries, Ali
Bailey, Paul
Blackburn, Steven
Kingstone, Tom
Lwembe, Saumu
Paskins, Zoe
author_facet Moult, Alice
Baker, Dereth
Aries, Ali
Bailey, Paul
Blackburn, Steven
Kingstone, Tom
Lwembe, Saumu
Paskins, Zoe
author_sort Moult, Alice
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Within the United Kingdom (UK), the National Institute for Health and Care Research is the largest funder of health and social care research, and additionally funds research centres that support the development and delivery of research. Each year, award-holders of these research centres are required to write a report about their activities, including a summary of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) activities. This study aimed to evaluate the PPIE sections of annual reports to identify best practice and challenges; this could inform future delivery of PPIE activities. METHODS: A framework documentary analysis informed by the six UK Standards for Public Involvement (‘Inclusive opportunities’, ‘Working together’, ‘Support and learning’, ‘Communications’, ‘Impact’ and ‘Governance’) was conducted on 112 reports. A quality improvement framework (‘Insights’) was used to evaluate quality as one of: ‘Welcoming’, ‘Listening’, ‘Learning’ and ‘Leading’. Recommendations from this review were co-developed with stakeholders and public contributors. RESULTS: Reports documented varying levels of quality in PPIE activities which spanned across all six UK Standards. Award-holders either intended to, or were actively working towards, increasing access and inclusivity of public involvement opportunities. Methods of working with public contributors were varied, including virtual and in-person meetings. Most award-holders offered PPIE support and learning opportunities for both public contributors and staff. Some award-holders invited public contributors to co-produce communication plans relating to study materials and research findings. The impact of public involvement was described in terms of benefits to public contributors themselves, and on an organisation and project level. Many award-holders reported inviting public contributors to share decision-making within and about governance structures. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation identified that most annual reports contained evidence of good quality PPIE practice with learning from public contributors. Using the UK Standards and Insights framework enabled exploration of the breadth and quality of PPIE activities. Recommendations include the need for a platform for centres to access and share PPIE best practice and for centres to collaborate with local and national partners to build relationships with the public through inclusive community engagement. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40900-023-00517-3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10688454
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106884542023-11-30 Using the UK standards for public involvement to evaluate the public involvement sections of annual reports from NIHR managed research centres Moult, Alice Baker, Dereth Aries, Ali Bailey, Paul Blackburn, Steven Kingstone, Tom Lwembe, Saumu Paskins, Zoe Res Involv Engagem Research BACKGROUND: Within the United Kingdom (UK), the National Institute for Health and Care Research is the largest funder of health and social care research, and additionally funds research centres that support the development and delivery of research. Each year, award-holders of these research centres are required to write a report about their activities, including a summary of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) activities. This study aimed to evaluate the PPIE sections of annual reports to identify best practice and challenges; this could inform future delivery of PPIE activities. METHODS: A framework documentary analysis informed by the six UK Standards for Public Involvement (‘Inclusive opportunities’, ‘Working together’, ‘Support and learning’, ‘Communications’, ‘Impact’ and ‘Governance’) was conducted on 112 reports. A quality improvement framework (‘Insights’) was used to evaluate quality as one of: ‘Welcoming’, ‘Listening’, ‘Learning’ and ‘Leading’. Recommendations from this review were co-developed with stakeholders and public contributors. RESULTS: Reports documented varying levels of quality in PPIE activities which spanned across all six UK Standards. Award-holders either intended to, or were actively working towards, increasing access and inclusivity of public involvement opportunities. Methods of working with public contributors were varied, including virtual and in-person meetings. Most award-holders offered PPIE support and learning opportunities for both public contributors and staff. Some award-holders invited public contributors to co-produce communication plans relating to study materials and research findings. The impact of public involvement was described in terms of benefits to public contributors themselves, and on an organisation and project level. Many award-holders reported inviting public contributors to share decision-making within and about governance structures. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation identified that most annual reports contained evidence of good quality PPIE practice with learning from public contributors. Using the UK Standards and Insights framework enabled exploration of the breadth and quality of PPIE activities. Recommendations include the need for a platform for centres to access and share PPIE best practice and for centres to collaborate with local and national partners to build relationships with the public through inclusive community engagement. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40900-023-00517-3. BioMed Central 2023-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC10688454/ /pubmed/38037160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00517-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Moult, Alice
Baker, Dereth
Aries, Ali
Bailey, Paul
Blackburn, Steven
Kingstone, Tom
Lwembe, Saumu
Paskins, Zoe
Using the UK standards for public involvement to evaluate the public involvement sections of annual reports from NIHR managed research centres
title Using the UK standards for public involvement to evaluate the public involvement sections of annual reports from NIHR managed research centres
title_full Using the UK standards for public involvement to evaluate the public involvement sections of annual reports from NIHR managed research centres
title_fullStr Using the UK standards for public involvement to evaluate the public involvement sections of annual reports from NIHR managed research centres
title_full_unstemmed Using the UK standards for public involvement to evaluate the public involvement sections of annual reports from NIHR managed research centres
title_short Using the UK standards for public involvement to evaluate the public involvement sections of annual reports from NIHR managed research centres
title_sort using the uk standards for public involvement to evaluate the public involvement sections of annual reports from nihr managed research centres
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10688454/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38037160
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00517-3
work_keys_str_mv AT moultalice usingtheukstandardsforpublicinvolvementtoevaluatethepublicinvolvementsectionsofannualreportsfromnihrmanagedresearchcentres
AT bakerdereth usingtheukstandardsforpublicinvolvementtoevaluatethepublicinvolvementsectionsofannualreportsfromnihrmanagedresearchcentres
AT ariesali usingtheukstandardsforpublicinvolvementtoevaluatethepublicinvolvementsectionsofannualreportsfromnihrmanagedresearchcentres
AT baileypaul usingtheukstandardsforpublicinvolvementtoevaluatethepublicinvolvementsectionsofannualreportsfromnihrmanagedresearchcentres
AT blackburnsteven usingtheukstandardsforpublicinvolvementtoevaluatethepublicinvolvementsectionsofannualreportsfromnihrmanagedresearchcentres
AT kingstonetom usingtheukstandardsforpublicinvolvementtoevaluatethepublicinvolvementsectionsofannualreportsfromnihrmanagedresearchcentres
AT lwembesaumu usingtheukstandardsforpublicinvolvementtoevaluatethepublicinvolvementsectionsofannualreportsfromnihrmanagedresearchcentres
AT paskinszoe usingtheukstandardsforpublicinvolvementtoevaluatethepublicinvolvementsectionsofannualreportsfromnihrmanagedresearchcentres