Cargando…

Exploring perceived barriers, drivers, impacts and the need for evaluation of public involvement in health and social care research: a modified Delphi study

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 ben...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Snape, D, Kirkham, J, Britten, N, Froggatt, K, Gradinger, F, Lobban, F, Popay, Jennie, Wyatt, K, Jacoby, Ann
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4067891/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24939808
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004943
_version_ 1782322355549241344
author Snape, D
Kirkham, J
Britten, N
Froggatt, K
Gradinger, F
Lobban, F
Popay, Jennie
Wyatt, K
Jacoby, Ann
author_facet Snape, D
Kirkham, J
Britten, N
Froggatt, K
Gradinger, F
Lobban, F
Popay, Jennie
Wyatt, K
Jacoby, Ann
author_sort Snape, D
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4067891
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40678912014-06-25 Exploring perceived barriers, drivers, impacts and the need for evaluation of public involvement in health and social care research: a modified Delphi study Snape, D Kirkham, J Britten, N Froggatt, K Gradinger, F Lobban, F Popay, Jennie Wyatt, K Jacoby, Ann BMJ Open Health Services Research 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2014-06-17 /pmc/articles/PMC4067891/ /pubmed/24939808 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004943 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
spellingShingle Health Services Research
Snape, D
Kirkham, J
Britten, N
Froggatt, K
Gradinger, F
Lobban, F
Popay, Jennie
Wyatt, K
Jacoby, Ann
Exploring perceived barriers, drivers, impacts and the need for evaluation of public involvement in health and social care research: a modified Delphi study
title Exploring perceived barriers, drivers, impacts and the need for evaluation of public involvement in health and social care research: a modified Delphi study
title_full Exploring perceived barriers, drivers, impacts and the need for evaluation of public involvement in health and social care research: a modified Delphi study
title_fullStr Exploring perceived barriers, drivers, impacts and the need for evaluation of public involvement in health and social care research: a modified Delphi study
title_full_unstemmed Exploring perceived barriers, drivers, impacts and the need for evaluation of public involvement in health and social care research: a modified Delphi study
title_short Exploring perceived barriers, drivers, impacts and the need for evaluation of public involvement in health and social care research: a modified Delphi study
title_sort exploring perceived barriers, drivers, impacts and the need for evaluation of public involvement in health and social care research: a modified delphi study
topic Health Services Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4067891/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24939808
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004943
work_keys_str_mv AT snaped exploringperceivedbarriersdriversimpactsandtheneedforevaluationofpublicinvolvementinhealthandsocialcareresearchamodifieddelphistudy
AT kirkhamj exploringperceivedbarriersdriversimpactsandtheneedforevaluationofpublicinvolvementinhealthandsocialcareresearchamodifieddelphistudy
AT brittenn exploringperceivedbarriersdriversimpactsandtheneedforevaluationofpublicinvolvementinhealthandsocialcareresearchamodifieddelphistudy
AT froggattk exploringperceivedbarriersdriversimpactsandtheneedforevaluationofpublicinvolvementinhealthandsocialcareresearchamodifieddelphistudy
AT gradingerf exploringperceivedbarriersdriversimpactsandtheneedforevaluationofpublicinvolvementinhealthandsocialcareresearchamodifieddelphistudy
AT lobbanf exploringperceivedbarriersdriversimpactsandtheneedforevaluationofpublicinvolvementinhealthandsocialcareresearchamodifieddelphistudy
AT popayjennie exploringperceivedbarriersdriversimpactsandtheneedforevaluationofpublicinvolvementinhealthandsocialcareresearchamodifieddelphistudy
AT wyattk exploringperceivedbarriersdriversimpactsandtheneedforevaluationofpublicinvolvementinhealthandsocialcareresearchamodifieddelphistudy
AT jacobyann exploringperceivedbarriersdriversimpactsandtheneedforevaluationofpublicinvolvementinhealthandsocialcareresearchamodifieddelphistudy