Cargando…

Remote working in public involvement: findings from a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND: This paper considers remote working in patient public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care research. With the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic and associated lock-down measures in the UK (from March 2020), PPIE activities switched to using remote methods (e.g., onli...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jones, Elisa, Frith, Lucy, Gabbay, Mark, Tahir, Naheed, Hossain, Muhammad, Goodall, Mark, Bristow, Katie, Hassan, Shaima
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9635121/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36333757
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40900-022-00396-0
_version_ 1784824640618627072
author Jones, Elisa
Frith, Lucy
Gabbay, Mark
Tahir, Naheed
Hossain, Muhammad
Goodall, Mark
Bristow, Katie
Hassan, Shaima
author_facet Jones, Elisa
Frith, Lucy
Gabbay, Mark
Tahir, Naheed
Hossain, Muhammad
Goodall, Mark
Bristow, Katie
Hassan, Shaima
author_sort Jones, Elisa
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This paper considers remote working in patient public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care research. With the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic and associated lock-down measures in the UK (from March 2020), PPIE activities switched to using remote methods (e.g., online meetings), to undertake involvement. Our study sought to understand the barriers to and facilitators for remote working in PPIE by exploring public contributors’ and PPIE professionals’ (people employed by organisations to facilitate and organise PPIE), experiences of working remotely, using online and digital technologies. A particular focus of our project was to consider how the ‘digital divide’ might negatively impact on diversity and inclusion in PPIE in health and social care research. METHODS: We used a mixed method approach: online surveys with public contributors involved in health and social care research, online surveys with public involvement professionals, and qualitative interviews with public contributors. We co-produced the study with public contributors from its inception, design, subsequent data analysis and writing outputs, to embed public involvement throughout the study. RESULTS: We had 244 respondents to the public contributor survey and 65 for the public involvement professionals (PIPs) survey and conducted 22 qualitative interviews. Our results suggest public contributors adapted well to working remotely and they were very positive about the experience. For many, their PPIE activities increased in amount and variety, and they had learnt new skills. There were both benefits and drawbacks to working remotely. Due to ongoing Covid restrictions during the research project, we were unable to include people who did not have access to digital tools and our findings have to be interpreted in this light. CONCLUSION: Participants generally favoured a mixture of face-to-face and remote working. We suggest the following good practice recommendations for remote working in PPIE: the importance of a good moderator and/or chair to ensure everyone can participate fully; account for individual needs of public contributors when planning meetings; provide a small expenses payment alongside public contributor fees to cover phone/electricity or WiFi charges; and continue the individual support that was often offered to public contributors during the pandemic.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9635121
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96351212022-11-05 Remote working in public involvement: findings from a mixed methods study Jones, Elisa Frith, Lucy Gabbay, Mark Tahir, Naheed Hossain, Muhammad Goodall, Mark Bristow, Katie Hassan, Shaima Res Involv Engagem Research BACKGROUND: This paper considers remote working in patient public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care research. With the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic and associated lock-down measures in the UK (from March 2020), PPIE activities switched to using remote methods (e.g., online meetings), to undertake involvement. Our study sought to understand the barriers to and facilitators for remote working in PPIE by exploring public contributors’ and PPIE professionals’ (people employed by organisations to facilitate and organise PPIE), experiences of working remotely, using online and digital technologies. A particular focus of our project was to consider how the ‘digital divide’ might negatively impact on diversity and inclusion in PPIE in health and social care research. METHODS: We used a mixed method approach: online surveys with public contributors involved in health and social care research, online surveys with public involvement professionals, and qualitative interviews with public contributors. We co-produced the study with public contributors from its inception, design, subsequent data analysis and writing outputs, to embed public involvement throughout the study. RESULTS: We had 244 respondents to the public contributor survey and 65 for the public involvement professionals (PIPs) survey and conducted 22 qualitative interviews. Our results suggest public contributors adapted well to working remotely and they were very positive about the experience. For many, their PPIE activities increased in amount and variety, and they had learnt new skills. There were both benefits and drawbacks to working remotely. Due to ongoing Covid restrictions during the research project, we were unable to include people who did not have access to digital tools and our findings have to be interpreted in this light. CONCLUSION: Participants generally favoured a mixture of face-to-face and remote working. We suggest the following good practice recommendations for remote working in PPIE: the importance of a good moderator and/or chair to ensure everyone can participate fully; account for individual needs of public contributors when planning meetings; provide a small expenses payment alongside public contributor fees to cover phone/electricity or WiFi charges; and continue the individual support that was often offered to public contributors during the pandemic. BioMed Central 2022-11-04 /pmc/articles/PMC9635121/ /pubmed/36333757 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40900-022-00396-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis 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
Jones, Elisa
Frith, Lucy
Gabbay, Mark
Tahir, Naheed
Hossain, Muhammad
Goodall, Mark
Bristow, Katie
Hassan, Shaima
Remote working in public involvement: findings from a mixed methods study
title Remote working in public involvement: findings from a mixed methods study
title_full Remote working in public involvement: findings from a mixed methods study
title_fullStr Remote working in public involvement: findings from a mixed methods study
title_full_unstemmed Remote working in public involvement: findings from a mixed methods study
title_short Remote working in public involvement: findings from a mixed methods study
title_sort remote working in public involvement: findings from a mixed methods study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9635121/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36333757
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40900-022-00396-0
work_keys_str_mv AT joneselisa remoteworkinginpublicinvolvementfindingsfromamixedmethodsstudy
AT frithlucy remoteworkinginpublicinvolvementfindingsfromamixedmethodsstudy
AT gabbaymark remoteworkinginpublicinvolvementfindingsfromamixedmethodsstudy
AT tahirnaheed remoteworkinginpublicinvolvementfindingsfromamixedmethodsstudy
AT hossainmuhammad remoteworkinginpublicinvolvementfindingsfromamixedmethodsstudy
AT goodallmark remoteworkinginpublicinvolvementfindingsfromamixedmethodsstudy
AT bristowkatie remoteworkinginpublicinvolvementfindingsfromamixedmethodsstudy
AT hassanshaima remoteworkinginpublicinvolvementfindingsfromamixedmethodsstudy