Lisa Robinson1, Julia Newton, Pam Dawson. 1. Falls and Syncope Service and NIHR Biomedical Research Centre in Ageing, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Involving members of the public in health research is said to produce higher quality research of greater clinical relevance. However, many of the anecdotal accounts of public involvement published in the academic literature to date have focused on the process of recruiting and involving members of the public and the effect of participation on these individuals rather than on how public involvement influenced the research process or outcomes. To strengthen the evidence base, there is clearly a need for more formal methods of capturing and documenting the impact of public involvement in health research. METHODS: In the first half of this paper, we discuss the importance of public involvement in health research and critically review the literature to identify current barriers to its successful implementation. In the second half, we present a conceptual model for evaluating and reporting the impact of public involvement in health research. Developed from our examination of the academic literature, we provide empirical support for the model by applying it to our recent experience of conducting a clinically based falls prevention study with members of the public. RESULTS: The conceptual model presented in this paper proposes key concepts and terminology that promote consistency when evaluating and reporting the impact of public involvement in health research. Reflecting on the experiential learning process, we demonstrate how the model promotes conceptual clarity whilst permitting the degree of flexibility required when working in a diverse culture such as the National Health Service. CONCLUSION: If more evidence can be provided that public involvement enhances research processes and outcomes, researchers may be less inclined to treat this initiative as something they have to do in order to satisfy funding agencies and regulatory bodies and actively embrace this phenomenon, producing accounts of successful public involvement that transcend current barriers to its successful implementation.
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Involving members of the public in health research is said to produce higher quality research of greater clinical relevance. However, many of the anecdotal accounts of public involvement published in the academic literature to date have focused on the process of recruiting and involving members of the public and the effect of participation on these individuals rather than on how public involvement influenced the research process or outcomes. To strengthen the evidence base, there is clearly a need for more formal methods of capturing and documenting the impact of public involvement in health research. METHODS: In the first half of this paper, we discuss the importance of public involvement in health research and critically review the literature to identify current barriers to its successful implementation. In the second half, we present a conceptual model for evaluating and reporting the impact of public involvement in health research. Developed from our examination of the academic literature, we provide empirical support for the model by applying it to our recent experience of conducting a clinically based falls prevention study with members of the public. RESULTS: The conceptual model presented in this paper proposes key concepts and terminology that promote consistency when evaluating and reporting the impact of public involvement in health research. Reflecting on the experiential learning process, we demonstrate how the model promotes conceptual clarity whilst permitting the degree of flexibility required when working in a diverse culture such as the National Health Service. CONCLUSION: If more evidence can be provided that public involvement enhances research processes and outcomes, researchers may be less inclined to treat this initiative as something they have to do in order to satisfy funding agencies and regulatory bodies and actively embrace this phenomenon, producing accounts of successful public involvement that transcend current barriers to its successful implementation.
Authors: Daniela B Friedman; Vicki M Young; Darcy A Freedman; Swann Arp Adams; Heather M Brandt; Sudha Xirasagar; Tisha M Felder; John R Ureda; Thomas Hurley; Leepao Khang; Dayna Campbell; James R Hébert Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Jonathan D Boote; Mary Dalgleish; Janet Freeman; Zena Jones; Marianne Miles; Helen Rodgers Journal: Health Expect Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Deborah Buck; Carrol Gamble; Louise Dudley; Jennifer Preston; Bec Hanley; Paula R Williamson; Bridget Young Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-12-04 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Anna Kearney; Paula Williamson; Bridget Young; Heather Bagley; Carrol Gamble; Simon Denegri; Delia Muir; Natalie A Simon; Stephen Thomas; Jim T Elliot; Helen Bulbeck; Joanna C Crocker; Claire Planner; Claire Vale; Mike Clarke; Tim Sprosen; Kerry Woolfall Journal: Health Expect Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Caroline L Miller; Kathy Mott; Michael Cousins; Stephanie Miller; Anne Johnson; Tony Lawson; Steve Wesselingh Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2017-02-10
Authors: Carrol Gamble; Louise Dudley; Alison Allam; Philip Bell; Heather Goodare; Bec Hanley; Jennifer Preston; Alison Walker; Paula Williamson; Bridget Young Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-07-23 Impact factor: 2.692