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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |